Mormons Are Christians?
J. Petrykowicz
Truer question may be are christians mormons?
In article <5jljfe$m...@camel2.mindspring.com>, NO.SPAM....@mindspring.com says...
>
>bri...@onyx-206.southwind.net (Brian Tegart) wrote:
>
>>All About Mormons (mor...@mormons.org) wrote:
>>: Is Jesus the brother of Satan?
>
>>: This is a common question asked by those exposed to Anti-Mormon
>>: literature.
>
><snip>
>
>>You are unclear - do you believe Christ had a beginning or not? If so,
>>He is not eternal and therefore cannot be God. If not, He and Satan
>>cannot be 'brothers', since he was not created like Satan was.
>
>You are unclear - Do you believe that we have a beginning or not?
>Were we created?
>
>If so, we cannot be eternal? I thought that our Spirits or Souls were
>eternal. ~ I have been wrong before :-) ~
>
>If not, then we can not be brothers with Christ and His Father can not
>be our Father?
>
>How are we to pray? and who to? And who did Jesus pray to?
>Instead of "Our Father, who art in heaven...." do we need to start
>saying "Your Father, who...." or "Jesus' Father, who...." and
>shouldn't Jesus have prayed "Me, who used to be in heaven..."?
>
>So, if we are eternal, then we must have *NOT* been created!?!
>
>>I'm trying not to be adversarial, I'm just trying to figure out
>>what you believe.
>
>>Brian
>>bri...@southwind.net
>
>I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm just trying to figure out what
>you believe.
>
>Stan
>stan...@mindspring.com
>
Spooky
It's funny to me that Mormons desperately want to be accepted as members
of a faith community ("Christian") that they spend vast amounts of
energy dissecting as wrong and fallen. To me it's like saying, "We think
your group is wrong and stands for mistaken concepts. Can we be one of
you, too?"
wilt
Hmmm. . . I can see your point (or at least, something of it) -- Now,
having said that, let me respectfully disagree with your premise.
I, for one, would have no problem with someone taking the position that
we (members of the LDS Church) are not Catholic. We aren't and do not
try to be. I, for one, would have no problem with someone taking the
position that we (again, LDS) are not Protestant. We aren't and do not
try to be. BUT -- when anyone tries to take the position we are not
Christian, in that we do not follow the Lord; that we do not worship the
risen Christ, then will I take exception.
_That_ is the crux of the (from my point of view anyway) disagreement.
The teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are
presented as a restoration of the New Testament Church. Disagree as you
like -- We will defend the faith.
"But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even
so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."
(I Thessalonians 2:4)
_Not_ to try to ". . . be one of you too?. . ." (from your words
above) but rather to proclaim the Gospel of Christ -- To follow Him who
died for our sins and was raised the third day. And no human has any
right to try to deny us our essential "Christianity."
wilt
Gerald G. Fuller
Spooky,
That is an easy one. We don' t want to be part of a "faith community" that
we consider wrong and fallen. We represent the restored truths _CLAIMED_ by
others in that "faith community". We would that all would come to a
knowledge of the truth of the restoration. We are and always have been
followers of Jesus Christ, which makes us Christian.
Gene
Spooky <Matthew.G....@ou.edu> wrote in article
<336BF9...@ou.edu>...
All About Mormons
Spooky wrote:
> It's funny to me that Mormons desperately want to be accepted as
> members
> of a faith community ("Christian") that they spend vast amounts of
> energy dissecting as wrong and fallen. To me it's like saying, "We
> think
> your group is wrong and stands for mistaken concepts. Can we be one
> of
> you, too?"
Latter-day Saints are Christians because we believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ and follow his teachings. In addition, our Church was organized
by the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.
We have absolutely no desire to be "one of you". However, Latter-day
Saints generally don't like people misrepresenting what we believe or
how we practice our religion. When we insist that we are Christians, it
is not because we want to be "one of you" (whoever one of you is
supposed to be). It is because we are Christians in the truest sense of
the word.
--
J O H N W A L S H All About Mormons
mor...@mormons.org http://www.mormons.org
And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of
Nazareth?
Philip saith unto him, Come and see. (John 1:46)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith
All About Mormons <mor...@mormons.org> wrote in article
<336C9B3B...@mormons.org>...
> Spooky wrote:
>
> > It's funny to me that Mormons desperately want to be accepted as
> > members
> > of a faith community ("Christian") that they spend vast amounts of
> > energy dissecting as wrong and fallen. To me it's like saying, "We
> > think
> > your group is wrong and stands for mistaken concepts. Can we be one
> > of
> > you, too?"
>
> Latter-day Saints are Christians because we believe in the Lord Jesus
> Christ and follow his teachings. In addition, our Church was organized
> by the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.
You mean you believe in God like the demons do? Or in Christ like Simon
Magus did? You certainly believed the lie of Satan when he told Eve that
they could be like God.
>
> We have absolutely no desire to be "one of you". However, Latter-day
> Saints generally don't like people misrepresenting what we believe or
> how we practice our religion. When we insist that we are Christians, it
> is not because we want to be "one of you" (whoever one of you is
> supposed to be). It is because we are Christians in the truest sense of
> the word.
Do you think if you tell yourself something over and over it will come
true? Please.
Where does Mormonism take that there was a great apostasy? What first or
second century writings do you take this from? And which first or second
century writings would you say is OK?
Marc A. Schindler
Spooky <Matthew.G....@ou.edu> wrote:
>It's funny to me that Mormons desperately want to be accepted as members
>of a faith community ("Christian") that they spend vast amounts of
>energy dissecting as wrong and fallen. To me it's like saying, "We think
>your group is wrong and stands for mistaken concepts. Can we be one of
>you, too?"
Your post is at least internally consistent, but you misunder-
stand our position. There are two aspects to our complaint:
1) We don't want to be part of a community which we feel has
over the years corrupted the original Christianity (hey, no
offence, but that's what it boils down to in short), but we also
reject that community's authority to define what constitutes
Christianity.
2) From a sociological point of view it is clear that Restora-
tionism is a branch of Christianity just as Protestantism,
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, but these are all subsets of a
larger group--Christianity. Whenever one subset of that group
takes it upon themselves to exclude another subset, not from
the latter subset, but from the greater group, they are prac-
ticing intolerance, and what they claim is mere theological
discussion actually hides plain out-and-out prejudice.
Am not saying all non-LDS Christians are like this (the most
vehement seem to be in the extreme biblicist camp, movements
within Evangelicalism, but then they hate practically everybody).
--
Marc A. Schindler,
Spruce Grove, Alberta. "There are three kinds of mathematicians:
those who can count, and those who can't." - Kevin Gödel
John Reed, Ttee.
Keith wrote:
>
> All About Mormons <mor...@mormons.org> wrote in article
> <336C9B3B...@mormons.org>...
> >
> > > It's funny to me that Mormons desperately want to be accepted as
> > > members
> > > of a faith community ("Christian") that they spend vast amounts of
> > > energy dissecting as wrong and fallen. To me it's like saying, "We
> > > think
> > > your group is wrong and stands for mistaken concepts. Can we be one
> > > of
> > > you, too?"
> >
> > Christ and follow his teachings. In addition, our Church was organized
> > by the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> You mean you believe in God like the demons do?
If you are refering to James 2:19, the answer is, 'Yes.' Just like in
Philippians 2:12,13.
Or in Christ like Simon Magus did?
If you are refering to Acts 8:9-24 the answer is 'Yes', except that we
do not believe
that money can 'buy' Priesthood Authority. Unlike most sects who would
try to justify
the unrighteous use of the name of Jesus Christ, we HAVE NOT. Unless we
violate the will of our God thru unrighteous dominion (D&C 121:34-42) we
TRUELY have legitimate
Priesthood Authority.
You certainly believed the lie of Satan when he told Eve that
> they could be like God.
>
>Well duh...
That's because satan, at that point, was speaking the TRUTH (satan lies
only AFTER he has successfully laid a foundation based on truth. Ya'
know-like Bill Clinton does.) Have you never read the testimony of the
Apostle Paul @ Philippians 2:6, Romans 8:16,17 Colossians 3:24. Besides,
what is it you suppose the very words of our Savior Jesus Christ would
lead up to when He said, "Come follow Me." ? Well, to enter into the
rest of the Father, of course, just like he did.
> > We have absolutely no desire to be "one of you". However, Latter-day
> > Saints generally don't like people misrepresenting what we believe or
> > how we practice our religion. When we insist that we are Christians, it
> > is not because we want to be "one of you" (whoever one of you is
> > supposed to be). It is because we are Christians in the truest sense of
> > the word.
>
> Do you think if you tell yourself something over and over it will come
> true? Please.
HAMINA HAMINA HAMINA HAMINA..........PUUULEEEEZZZZZZ !!! Where did you
ever get the notion that that was the doctrine the LDS church espoused ?
> Where does Mormonism take that there was a great apostasy? What first or
> second century writings do you take this from? And which first or second
> century writings would you say is OK?
<Tim Allen type gruntz> aaahhhUUUUUUhh?????? IF I were to answer this
on the assumption that you wanted to understand WHEN the 'great
apostasy' occured, then I'd
have to say generally at the death of the last Apostles of Jesus Christ
around
68-96 A.D. 'till June(ish) 1829. D&C 27:12,13. Peace, JR
Keith
John Reed, Ttee. <k...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<336D8C...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>...
So you have the faith of the demons and of Simon Magus who all had a faith
which does not save but leads straight to Hell.
>
> You certainly believed the lie of Satan when he told Eve that
> > they could be like God.
> >
> >Well duh...
> That's because satan, at that point, was speaking the TRUTH (satan lies
> only AFTER he has successfully laid a foundation based on truth. Ya'
> know-like Bill Clinton does.) Have you never read the testimony of the
> Apostle Paul @ Philippians 2:6, Romans 8:16,17 Colossians 3:24. Besides,
> what is it you suppose the very words of our Savior Jesus Christ would
> lead up to when He said, "Come follow Me." ? Well, to enter into the
> rest of the Father, of course, just like he did.
Sorry but God disagrees with you. God says there is no truth in Satan.
Are you so blind that you don't see that Satan was and is a liar? Is this
another place where the Bible disagrees with your Mormon doctrines?
John 8:44
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your
father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the
truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native
language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
>
> > > We have absolutely no desire to be "one of you". However, Latter-day
> > > Saints generally don't like people misrepresenting what we believe or
> > > how we practice our religion. When we insist that we are Christians,
it
> > > is not because we want to be "one of you" (whoever one of you is
> > > supposed to be). It is because we are Christians in the truest sense
of
> > > the word.
> >
> > Do you think if you tell yourself something over and over it will come
> > true? Please.
>
> HAMINA HAMINA HAMINA HAMINA..........PUUULEEEEZZZZZZ !!! Where did you
> ever get the notion that that was the doctrine the LDS church espoused ?
>
> > Where does Mormonism take that there was a great apostasy? What first
or
> > second century writings do you take this from? And which first or
second
> > century writings would you say is OK?
>
> <Tim Allen type gruntz> aaahhhUUUUUUhh?????? IF I were to answer this
> on the assumption that you wanted to understand WHEN the 'great
> apostasy' occured, then I'd
> have to say generally at the death of the last Apostles of Jesus Christ
> around
> 68-96 A.D. 'till June(ish) 1829. D&C 27:12,13. Peace, JR
I think this whole talk of a general apostasy is a bunch of garbage. If it
were true, there should be plenty of first century writings corroborating
your claims. Where are they? I have read first century writings and find
NOTHING. I just don't like unsubstantiated claims.
John Reed, Ttee.
deceive? Yes, and you will agree with me here, but I said, "...at this
point,..." and all of sudden agreement is lost. So, I must assume that
you PRESUME that satan is incapable of speaking any truth even with the
intent to deceive. In which case, if I could prove your PRESUMPTION
wrong, God and I would agree again, correct? Read very carefully out of
the Authorized King James (because this is the only one that the Church
of Wicca despises because it holds the truth) Genesis 3:1-7,22
You OBVIOUSLY havn't read very much of the correct material then, 'cuz
there is plenty of it out there even if you don't agree with it.
Besides the LDS chuch has a big surprise instore for it, namely the
latter-day
apostasy. Umm, what PRESUMPTION are you under that I am a Mormon?
Keith
John Reed, Ttee. <k...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<336EDF...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>...
Considering that Satan deceived Eve, then it makes sense and is consistent
that Satan was lying. If Satan were telling the truth, then Eve would have
immediately become god but she didn't. It was a lie and it was such a good
lie, that you believe it also.
What kind of hot air is this? I asked for specific first century writings.
What are they? I don't believe they exist and would love for you to prove
me wrong. If you give me specific citings of first century writings, I
will go read them.
John Reed, Ttee.
You did NOT read carefully or, if you had, you are not being honest in
addressing my point. Satan IS capable of speaking truth. His motives are
to deceive. DO YOU DISAGREE ?
wilt
(snipped previous posting to get to this point)
Keith posted:
> What kind of hot air is this? I asked for specific first century
>writings. What are they? I don't believe they exist and would love for
>you to prove me wrong. If you give me specific citings of first century
>writings, I will go read them.
You ask for a "missing link" of the apostacy. Folks didn't wake up one
Monday morning and decide - "It's a nice day, let's go into complete
apostacy and change things around. . ." It was a gradual insertion of
Greek philosophy and various practices not in keeping with the Gospel and
promulgated by the Lord during His mortal life. Reading the letters of
Paul, you may well see the references to incorrect teachings and false
doctrines which were rampant while the Apostles yet lived.
Following the deaths of the Apostles and the attendent increase in
variant opinions and teachings by individuals and groups. . . Many doing
the best they could, but that still kind of adds up to the apostacy as
foretold in scripture. Shame on you for trying such a "slippery slope"
trap. . .
(snipped remainder of posting)
wilt
Randy Ostler
wilt wrote:
<snip>
> Following the deaths of the Apostles and the attendent increase in
> variant opinions and teachings by individuals and groups. . . Many doing
> the best they could, but that still kind of adds up to the apostacy as
> foretold in scripture. Shame on you for trying such a "slippery slope"
> trap. . .
>
> (snipped remainder of posting)
>
> wilt
There is an interesting evolution after the first century in the
church. The first century is composed of Apostles (General Authorities)
writing letters to congregations to teach them the way. Int he second
century, there are clearly no Authorities. There are scriptorians and
theologians that begin the philosophizing of what the teachings of the
Apostles and Saviour meant in the context of the world as it continually
changed. It wasn't for another couple hundred years that the Bishop of
Lyon proposed the idea that the Bishop of Rome had the Keys of the
Kingdom, and therefore the last word on doctrine and heresy. It's
interesting to me that the Catholic church has in it's archives the
arguments of the Bishop of Lyon persuading the presidence of the Bishop
of Rome. Seems rather strange, since if he had the keys, wouldn't one
of the Bishops of Rome have known long before? It seems that this
little tidbit of information would have been brought out years earlier.
Randy
Keith
John Reed, Ttee. <k...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<336F79...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net>...
I didn't miss your point at all. I just showed you though that God
disagrees with you and I showed from the Bible where it says it. I prefer
to believe the Bible.
Jeremy
its funny to me that "Christians" would spend so much time on semantics and
trying to explain and limit someone else's faith. Mormons follow Jesus to
the best of their ability im sure. who's the last Christian you know to be
truly Christian? we all fall short of following Jesus precisely.. what
about Catholics? where in the bible is the Pope? what about any
denomination who calls themselves Christian? Christianity has to do with
faith in Christ, that he is the son of the one God, and in his power to
save right? and nothing else right?! i dont see how i could say someone
elses faith in Jesus is worse than mine.
and i have a question for everyone.. Paul wrote that it is ok to eat meat
sacrificed to idols... he said that we shouldn't worry about those
peripheral matters.. (1 Cor. 8) yet in revelation 14-16 is Jesus saying
that it is wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols? i am asking this not
because im afraid for anyone who eats meat sacrificed to idols as im sure
that opportunity rarely if ever arises but im wondering about the
credibility of Paul or John!
if you can, please respond by email.
love
jeremy
> > > It's funny to me that Mormons desperately want to be accepted as
> > > members
> > > of a faith community ("Christian") that they spend vast amounts of
> > > energy dissecting as wrong and fallen. To me it's like saying, "We
> > > think
> > > your group is wrong and stands for mistaken concepts. Can we be one
> > > of
> > > you, too?"
> >
> > Latter-day Saints are Christians because we believe in the Lord Jesus
> > Christ and follow his teachings. In addition, our Church was organized
> > by the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> You mean you believe in God like the demons do? Or in Christ like Simon
> Magus did? You certainly believed the lie of Satan when he told Eve that
> they could be like God.
>
> >
> > We have absolutely no desire to be "one of you". However, Latter-day
> > Saints generally don't like people misrepresenting what we believe or
> > how we practice our religion. When we insist that we are Christians, it
> > is not because we want to be "one of you" (whoever one of you is
> > supposed to be). It is because we are Christians in the truest sense
of
> > the word.
etc........
John Reed, Ttee.
You have NOT SHOWN ANYTHIHG yet, but ignorance ! IF you are correct in
your opinion than SHOW me which scripture I err in, or another verse(s)
IN CONTEXT to put me in line with your OPINION. Clear, Homey?
Peace, JR
D Sergeant (CoMIR)
John Reed, Ttee. (k...@mail.clt.bellsouth.net) wrote:
: That's because satan, at that point, was speaking the TRUTH (satan lies
: only AFTER he has successfully laid a foundation based on truth. Ya'
: know-like Bill Clinton does.)
This is a lie. Basing a lie on truth does not make the foundation true.
Where Mormon doctrine is based on the words of Satan, this is where it
falls down.
: <Tim Allen type gruntz> aaahhhUUUUUUhh?????? IF I were to answer this
: on the assumption that you wanted to understand WHEN the 'great
: apostasy' occured, then I'd have to say generally at the death of the
: last Apostles of Jesus Christ around
: 68-96 A.D. 'till June(ish) 1829. D&C 27:12,13. Peace, JR
This suggests that God put aside His plan for over 1700 years even though
He had begun Christs church with the apostles. Hence the authority of D&C
27 can easily be rejected, since it carries none.
Derek
D Sergeant (CoMIR)
wilt (wf...@erols.com) wrote:
: _That_ is the crux of the (from my point of view anyway) disagreement.
: presented as a restoration of the New Testament Church. Disagree as you
: like -- We will defend the faith.
:
: "But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even
: so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."
: (I Thessalonians 2:4)
:
: _Not_ to try to ". . . be one of you too?. . ." (from your words
: above) but rather to proclaim the Gospel of Christ -- To follow Him who
: died for our sins and was raised the third day. And no human has any
: right to try to deny us our essential "Christianity."
:
: wilt
I think that main contention that `truest christians' (thanks for that
idea John Walsh!) have is that the gospel that the LDS organisation teaches
is different from the gospel of Christ that the Bible teaches.
Derek
TAMI BEHRING
Are Mormons Christians? an interesting question that a lot of people have
tries to answer. But I think the only person whose opinion really matters
is that of Jesus himself. In my opnion it does litlle good to go around
categorizing people as Christian or not. I do not think Jesus would do
that either. There are so many factions of Christianity who can say what
is the correct theology of being a Christian or not, even the Bible is
contradictory regarding this point. I do think, however that a Christian
should act with the heart that Jesus described: to love God with all your
heart and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. If the Mormons or
anyone for that matter is doing that then to my mind they are Christians.
Let us stop this petty name calling and truly emulate Christ and His love
instead of categorizing people whom we have never met.All the Mormons I
have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to categorize thwm as
Christian or not.
Joe Steve Swick III
___TAMI BEHRING___
Are Mormons Christians? an interesting question that a lot of people
matters is that of Jesus himself.
I was not aware that he was posting to this NG, although I have seen
quite a few people here quoting him. I will look forward to reading his
opinions here in the near future. Or, if you prefer, I'm sure we can ask
Dick, and he can give us a revelation on the subject. Personally, I'd
rather wait for Jesus' own e-mail.
___TAMI BEHRING___
All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
categorize them as Christian or not.
-----
Ah, so you prefer the label, "wonderful people" for Mormons. Some on
this forum would prefer to categorize them as religious trolls, but I
rather prefer the "wonderful people" category, since I am a Mormon.
Kindest Regards!
Joe Steve Swick III
No man can disprove a truth -- Why not rather every man rise up and say,
'Let God be true, let the truth remain and let me know the truth. That
is what I want -- I will submit to it; and let every false theory and
principle fall, to rise up no more' (BY JD 8:132).
gd...@netonecom.net
> All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
> categorize them as Christian or not.
> -----
are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know the tree
by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
Michael R. Hagerty
gd...@netonecom.net wrote:
In that case, it would be important to look at all their fruit, not
just the pieces laid out for display.
The manner and circumstances in which Mormonism began cannot be
overlooked or ameliorated by pointing to Mormon good works. We're
talking about a form of belief which claims to be Christian while at
the same time calls the Apostle's Creed and the Westminster Confession
abominations which offend Christ. Is this credible? And look at what
affirming Mormon belief includes:
We are asked to believe in the truth of a faith whose published,
primary literature condemns all other instances of Christian faith as
corruptions and abominations. We are asked to believe in a book which
is claimed by its adherants to be superior to and a correction of the
Bible, whose manuscript authority cannot begin to be compared to that
for the Bible. Not even a single primary source manuscript exists
written in the ‘language’ of the plates. It's translation was
purported to be effected by God but the original wording was penned
with the crudest of grammatical errors. We are furthermore asked to
accept the LDS redaction and correction of theBook of Mormon by
individuals who somehow managed to do so without access to the primary
source material or the means to translate it.
We are asked to accept as true an account which speaks of events,
peoples and times spanning almost a thousand years, and in all this
time didn’t manage to leave a single trace of their existence which
can be substantiated by competent independent authority. Even the
people themselves are a conflict in reason, doing things which the
faithful of Judah were expressly commanded not to do, changing their
traditions and customs contrary to that of traditional Judaism, and in
the end, for what? To have their entire race wiped out or dissipated
and finally to become the progenitors of a people whom the Mormons
have historically despised.
Add to this the rather numerous LDS historical blunders which have
frequently demonstrated their rather loose grasp of careful
scholarship: an example is the once great mural in the visitor center
in Salt Lake which portrayed the risen Christ appearing to the
Meso-americans with some rather well known Mayan temples in the
background. Until, of course, it was pointed out to LDS authorities
that these temples were built centuries after the purported time of
Christ’s visit. The mural was taken down.
Do you find these elements worthy of respect? Or do you believe that
one's works are satisfactory to offset whatever fundamental issues of
credibility might arise within the content of one's beliefs?
MicroMan
Michael R. Hagerty wrote:
>
> gd...@netonecom.net wrote:
>
> >> All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
> >> categorize them as Christian or not.
> >> -----
> >
> > Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their core beliefs
> >are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know the tree
> >by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
>
> In that case, it would be important to look at all their fruit, not
> just the pieces laid out for display.
>
Some of the other "fruits" that come to my mind are the following:
The Mountain Meadows massacre. But of course the "official" church
psoition is that the leaders alive at that time, in particular the
prophet, were totally unaware/uninvloved in this event.
Polygamy, need I say more.
False prophecies uttered by the founder.
And as mentioned in the previous post, false doctrine.
MicroMan
John Cornett
In previous article TAMI BEHRING writes:
>Are Mormons Christians? an interesting question that a lot of people have
>tried to answer. But I think the only person whose opinion really matters
>is that of Jesus himself. In my opnion it does litlle good to go around
>categorizing people as Christian or not. I do not think Jesus would do
>that either. There are so many factions of Christianity who can say what
>is the correct theology of being a Christian or not, even the Bible is
>contradictory regarding this point. I do think, however that a Christian
>should act with the heart that Jesus described: to love God with all your
>heart and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. If the Mormons or
>anyone for that matter is doing that then to my mind they are Christians.
>Let us stop this petty name calling and truly emulate Christ and His love
>instead of categorizing people whom we have never met.All the Mormons I
>have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to categorize thwm as
>Christian or not.
----------------
I agree entirely with this. If we read the Four Gospels-- Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John--through carefully, and especially focus on
the statements of Jesus... is it not true that He returns again
and again to the theme that a true believer is the one who ACTS
on His teachings and the values He brings forth, which are from
God; and this includes to love God with all the heart, to long
to follow His righteous way; and to love others as ourselves.
Surely we can agree that, if we are true believers, we are to
bring His spirit into us, and we become a part of him; and that
is the idea, isn't it, of the Sacraments; it has deep spiritual
meaning, it is not just a ceremony.
He tells us to be kind, to be reasonable, to be humble in spirit,
not to focus on ceremony or flattery, not to have gang-mentality,
but to reach out and look for the good in others.. and above all,
not to bicker among ourselves.
If we focus on these things, we incorporate His words into us and
act on them, then we have built our house upon a rock; and yet,
we fall again and again into petty bickering... over the nature
of angels, what heaven is like, what we will be doing in the
next life... and on and on.
This needs to stop. A true Christian, in my view, is the one who
incorporates Christ's teachings into himself and acts on them.
If we don't do that, we can shout "Jesus, Jesus" a hundred times
and tell everyone all about angels and Bible verses, and the
other world... but surely, we are not there.
It is not our dogma that makes us Christians, in my view; it is
a spiritual matter, within the heart. Surely we can agree that
Jesus tried and tried to get that across to us but we are very
stubborn, we struggle always with our vanity, power plays, or
gang-like mentality, and that is why we are not winning the
battle for good values in society.
We are weak and divided, bickering among ourselves, and not focused.
Our children suffer, our schools suffer, society struggles and loses
sense of direction. We can improve ourselves, we can pull together,
and that is what must happen if we are Christians, in my view.
John Cornett
Craig Anderson
Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
<5lvpao$t...@news.azstarnet.com>...
> gd...@netonecom.net wrote:
>
> >> All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
> >> -----
> >
> > Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their core
beliefs
> >are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know the
tree
> >by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
>
> In that case, it would be important to look at all their fruit, not
> just the pieces laid out for display.
>
> overlooked or ameliorated by pointing to Mormon good works. We're
> talking about a form of belief which claims to be Christian while at
> the same time calls the Apostle's Creed and the Westminster Confession
> abominations which offend Christ. Is this credible?
Yes, it is credible, but worse is that you've misstated things quite a bit
here. Consider the Westminster Confession; nowhere is the Westminster
Confession called an "abomination". Stating errors such as this only
perpetuates the misunderstandings, so let's stop doing that, ok?
When was the Westminster Confession written? Over 1000 years after the
death of Christ and the apostles. Did any of them pen the words of the
confession? No. So what have we really got? Nothing more than the teachings
of those who attempted to put into writing their interpretation of the
scriptures. Did the Lord dictate the confession? No. Did any apostles or
prophets state that it was from the Lord? No. So, does it represent the
gospel of Christ? Maybe, maybe not. Today it has reached the point where it
has become practically canonized for all the ferocity its adherents cleave
to it. It has become - for all intents and purposes - scripture to many,
including those who whine about a particular verse in Revelations.
> We are asked to believe in the truth of a faith whose published,
> primary literature condemns all other instances of Christian faith as
> corruptions and abominations.
Rather, you are invited to pray about the words of Christ himself. He was
the one who said that the _creeds_ of the religions of the day were wrong.
_No_ Christian "faith" was condemned. As usual, the critics are reading
something into it that isn't there.
> We are asked to believe in a book which
> is claimed by its adherants to be superior to and a correction of the
> Bible
A "correction" to the Bible? Where in the world did you get an idea like
that? That's certainly _not_ our position. As for being superior to the
Bible, this could be considered correct only in that we believe it to be
correctly translated. The Bible has errors in it, even additions beyond
what was originally written. If you can show a version of the Bible that is
absolutely correctly translated 100%, you'd get no argument from us on
total acceptance of it. Unfortunately, such is simply not possible.
However, we accept the Bible as the word of God. Period.
> whose manuscript authority cannot begin to be compared to that
> for the Bible.
Depends entirely on what you mean be "compared" and "authority" here. You
were too vague.
> Not even a single primary source manuscript exists
> written in the ‘language’ of the plates.
Which is pretty much irrelevant to the material itself. You can't find
original manuscripts for the NT or OT either. You're straying from
consideration of beliefs and doctrine here.
> It's translation was
> purported to be effected by God but the original wording was penned
> with the crudest of grammatical errors.
Considering that the English language of the day didn't actually even
_have_ an official grammar, and that it was penned according to the common
spelling of the day, I'd say you're pretty much grasping at straws here.
> We are furthermore asked to
> accept the LDS redaction and correction of the Book of Mormon by
> individuals who somehow managed to do so without access to the primary
> source material or the means to translate it.
You have a problem with adding punctuation? Fine. You can obtain a copy of
the book before the punctuation was added. Just ask.
> We are asked to accept as true an account which speaks of events,
> peoples and times spanning almost a thousand years, and in all this
> time didn’t manage to leave a single trace of their existence which
> can be substantiated by competent independent authority.
You are evidently very much unaware of the latest archaeological studies.
> Even the
> people themselves are a conflict in reason, doing things which the
> faithful of Judah were expressly commanded not to do, changing their
> traditions and customs contrary to that of traditional Judaism
You'll have to explain yourself here. Further, you'll have to explain just
why this should be expected, and why it would be considered important.
> and in the end, for what? To have their entire race wiped out or
dissipated
What's your point? That part of the people were destroyed by the other part
is not questioned. However, the _entire_ race was _not_ destroyed. A large
group of them survived quite intact, and there's no indication from the
book that they were "dissipated".
> and finally to become the progenitors of a people whom the Mormons
> have historically despised.
"Historically despised"? You mean the indians here I presume. First, you
assume that the indians are the ancestors of the BofM people. It is
generally accepted that many of them probably are, but this is not
necessarily doctrine. As for being despised, the LDS had their share of
difficulties with the Indians to be sure, but no group treated the Utes
better than the LDS did. As for being despised, all of the Indian tribes
have been despised by the settlers in the US, as is well documented. The
LDS certainly did them no worse, and in many instances far better, than the
rest of the citizens of the country.
> Add to this the rather numerous LDS historical blunders which have
> frequently demonstrated their rather loose grasp of careful
> scholarship
Which means what as far as doctrine is concerned? You have now not only
veered from the path but gone entirely out of the field. This has nothing
to do with doctrine or beliefs at all. You're simply stating your own
prejudices now. But so be it. Indeed, there has been some loose scholarship
in the past, but as more knowledge is acquired and assimilated, it is used
as appropriate. Your example of the mural is one. But keep in mind that the
mural was meant to depict a particular event. The background drawings are
largely irrelevant to the event portrayed.
> Do you find these elements worthy of respect?
Are most of your weak complainings above even relevant? No. For the most
part, it's simply ramblings reflecting your own dissatisfaction.
> Or do you believe that
> one's works are satisfactory to offset whatever fundamental issues of
> credibility might arise within the content of one's beliefs?
You really haven't dealt much with the fundamental beliefs though, have
you? One's works tend to reflect one's beliefs. All you have done is to air
your own personal grievances, and then try to claim that somehow this
represents our beliefs when in actuality it does not. The works of the
people as a whole speak for themselves, and as I said, reflect the core
beliefs of the people, which are indeed, _Christian_.
Craig
Craig Anderson
MicroMan <cep...@gte.net> wrote in article
<5m1lo9$k8u$1...@news10.gte.net>...
> Michael R. Hagerty wrote:
> >
> > gd...@netonecom.net wrote:
> >
> > >> All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse
to
> > >> categorize them as Christian or not.
> > >> -----
> > >
> > > Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their
core beliefs
> > >are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know
the tree
> > >by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
> >
> > In that case, it would be important to look at all their fruit, not
> > just the pieces laid out for display.
> >
church history are well taken. They indicate an intimate knowledge of the
Mormon faith and teachings.
I don't think I would agree.
> Some of the other "fruits" that come to my mind are the following:
>
> The Mountain Meadows massacre. But of course the "official" church
> psoition is that the leaders alive at that time, in particular the
> prophet, were totally unaware/uninvloved in this event.
Oh, the leaders in SLC did indeed find out about it. The "official" church
position is exactly what happened: a group in southern Utah acted on their
own. They sent a message to SLC to ask BY for permission. However BY's
letter emphatically telling them to _not_ interfere with the group passing
through didn't arrive until well after the event had already taken place.
There was _never_ any official church endorsement of the massacre. Your
cute little wording tries to imply that indeed they did know and endorsed
it and then pretended they didn't, when such is not actually the case, and
is therefore dishonest.
> Polygamy, need I say more.
You don't need to say more because you haven't said anything yet. Are you
unaware of polygamy practiced by the prophets in the Bible?
> False prophecies uttered by the founder.
This has not been demonstrated by anyone.
> And as mentioned in the previous post, false doctrine.
This has also not been shown. All that was shown in the previous post was
one person's personal agenda and opinions. No false doctrine has been
documented. Are you willing to give it a try?
Craig
MicroMan
The materials of which I speak, which can prove the statements that I
have made are many. They can be found all over the internet, they are
found in historical documents, and probably the most damning, they are
to be found in the churche's pwn documents. However this material has
been marked as "anti" by the church leaders (wonder why). They do not
want their followers to be exposed to satan's attempts to undermine
their authority. Or is it that they do not want their followers to find
the truth??? Who is really being misled here?
MicroMan
Chris Lambert
In article <N.052097....@rc-75.netonecom.net>, gd...@netonecom.net
writes
>> All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
>> categorize them as Christian or not.
>> -----
>
> Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their core beliefs
>are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know the tree
>by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
>
nothing else. A mormon can not be a #Christian because they have added
to the word of God.
Chris Lambert
e-mail: ch...@lambert-bas.demon.co.uk
website: http://www.lambert-bas.demon.co.uk/
Will Purvine
> > > Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their
core beliefs
> > >are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know
the tree
> > >by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
> > >
> > A Christian is someone who believes what it says in the Bible and
> > nothing else. A mormon can not be a #Christian because they have added
> > to the word of God.
> > Chris Lambert
>
>
> One more time then, what is the reference for your position above? There
> is none. The Bible is the word of God, no question from LDS folks. The
> Bible is *not* the only word of God -- objections from some, but with
> nothing to do with the essential "Christianity" of the folks. A
> Christian is one who professes belief in Jesus Christ. Period. All else
> is in the hands of God.
>
> wilt
Here I must indulge in a simple comparison of faiths that may put this
whole thread to an end. Mormons are to Christians as Christians are to
Jews. That is, the Christian believes in the temple documents of the Jew,
plus some (the NT). The Christian faith is the child of Judaism, and the
child looks upon the father (Judaism) with the same disdain that the father
looks upon the child (Christianity). The Christians believe they have
found the Messiah that the Jews are still looking for, and the Jews believe
that the Christians have been decieved, possibly by Satan or some such.
The Mormon church believes in the Temple documents (the Bible) of its
father, the Christian church, plus some (BoM, D&C, PGP). Again, we have
both the father (Christianity) looking upon the child (Mormonism) with
disdain, and vice versa. The father believes the son has been decieved,
possibly by Satan or some such. The son cannot believe the father is so
unwilling to accept further revelation in the case of Jesus Christ.
Will "And a little child shall lead them" Purvine
Patrick C. Labbe RN MSN KT MPS 32^
Craig Anderson wrote:
> > Some of the other "fruits" that come to my mind are the following:
> >
> > The Mountain Meadows massacre. But of course the "official" church
> > psoition is that the leaders alive at that time, in particular the
> > prophet, were totally unaware/uninvloved in this event.
>
> Oh, the leaders in SLC did indeed find out about it. The "official" church
> position is exactly what happened: a group in southern Utah acted on their
> own. They sent a message to SLC to ask BY for permission. However BY's
> letter emphatically telling them to _not_ interfere with the group passing
> through didn't arrive until well after the event had already taken place.
> There was _never_ any official church endorsement of the massacre. Your
> cute little wording tries to imply that indeed they did know and endorsed
> it and then pretended they didn't, when such is not actually the case, and
> is therefore dishonest.
>
Please read "John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer, Builder, Scapegoat" by Juanita Brooks, his
granddaughter. It is very well researched and written and indeed BY and other Church officals
not only knew but APPROVED the Meadow Mountain Massacre. The Church even issued an offical
apology on the 100th ann. for the Church is role! BTW: The only man to be executed was John
Doyle Lee and he wasn't really even the leader. Children were taken from the victims and
distributed to "good" LDS families. There were horrors and the Church knew about it and aided in
those horrors.....
The book is available from UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS in Logan!
--
Patrick C. Labbe RN MSN MPS KT 32^
Blue Lodge #142 AFM, Dillon SC
Myrtle Lodge #3, K of P, Columbia, SC
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
And now I say to the church, go forth and proclaim the gospel.
For there are those whose day is yet long and they await the
testimonies experienced by those called to be my people.
Restoration Revelations 12:29
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
What shall then answer the messengers of the nation? That the
Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust
in it.
Isaiah 14:32
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And the Lord called his people, Zion, because they were of one
heart and of one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there
were no poor among them.
Genesis 7:23
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/m/o/r/moroniha.html
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/b/l/u/blue142afm.html
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
wilt
Chris Lambert wrote:
>
> In article <N.052097....@rc-75.netonecom.net>, gd...@netonecom.net
> writes
> >> All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
> >> categorize them as Christian or not.
> >> -----
> >
> >are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know the tree
> >by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
> >
> A Christian is someone who believes what it says in the Bible and
> nothing else. A mormon can not be a #Christian because they have added
> to the word of God.
> Chris Lambert
One more time then, what is the reference for your position above? There
is none. The Bible is the word of God, no question from LDS folks. The
Bible is *not* the only word of God -- objections from some, but with
nothing to do with the essential "Christianity" of the folks. A
Christian is one who professes belief in Jesus Christ. Period. All else
is in the hands of God.
wilt
Marc A. Schindler
MicroMan <cep...@gte.net> wrote:
>Craig Anderson wrote:
<snip>
>> one person's personal agenda and opinions. No false doctrine has been
>> documented. Are you willing to give it a try?
>>
>> Craig
>
>
> The materials of which I speak, which can prove the statements that I
>have made are many. They can be found all over the internet, they are
>found in historical documents, and probably the most damning, they are
>to be found in the churche's pwn documents. However this material has
>been marked as "anti" by the church leaders (wonder why). They do not
>want their followers to be exposed to satan's attempts to undermine
>their authority. Or is it that they do not want their followers to find
>the truth??? Who is really being misled here?
>
>MicroMan
Well, as long as you continue to puff yourself up and utter
empty threats, and not demonstrate any real argument, I guess
we'll never find out "who is really being misled here", will we?
Put up or shut up, in other words.
--
Marc A. Schindler,
Spruce Grove, Alberta. "There are three kinds of mathematicians:
those who can count, and those who can't." - Kevin Gödel
Michael R. Hagerty
"Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
>> The manner and circumstances in which Mormonism began cannot be
>> overlooked or ameliorated by pointing to Mormon good works. We're
>> talking about a form of belief which claims to be Christian while at
>> the same time calls the Apostle's Creed and the Westminster Confession
>> abominations which offend Christ. Is this credible?
>Yes, it is credible, but worse is that you've misstated things quite a bit
>here. Consider the Westminster Confession; nowhere is the Westminster
>Confession called an "abomination". Stating errors such as this only
>perpetuates the misunderstandings, so let's stop doing that, ok?
If you're familiar with Mormon literature, you should know it's not
really necessary to produce a passage about the Westminster Confession
itself. In Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith - History 1:19) Smith
testifies that the heavenly messenger proclaimed that "all their
creeds were an abomination in his (God's) sight.", [parens mine].
Unless you wish to argue that Smith elsewhere excluded Westiminster
from the indictment?
>When was the Westminster Confession written? Over 1000 years after the
>death of Christ and the apostles. Did any of them pen the words of the
>confession? No. . .
For all this furor about how it originated, you haven't shown why the
contents of the creed should be regarded by Christ as an abomination.
It is nowhere an axiom that only the creeds of the apostles count.
And you should note that the heavenly messenger did not single out
these as an exception. It seems safe to conclude that by "all
creeds" he includes the Apostle's Creed which did originate as close
to the apostles as can be known. So your argument about distance in
time from the apostles or Christ falls to the ground.
As for how individuals or entire denominations have mis-used the
Westminster Confession, this does not mitigate the claim that the
words in the creed itself are abominable. After all the messenger did
not say that man's worship of the creeds was an abomination but that
the creed's themselves were.
You might try reading the Confession. As you do, I'd like to see you
pick out and post the abominations which so offend Christ.
>> We are asked to believe in the truth of a faith whose published,
>> primary literature condemns all other instances of Christian faith as
>> corruptions and abominations.
>Rather, you are invited to pray about the words of Christ himself. He was
>the one who said that the _creeds_ of the religions of the day were wrong.
>_No_ Christian "faith" was condemned. As usual, the critics are reading
>something into it that isn't there.
I don't follow this. Where did Christ state that the creeds of other
religions of the day were wrong? Even so, how does this explain why
he was condemning those creeds which glorified his name?
And what is meant by "no Christian faith was condemned"? In the
messengers proclamation to Smith? Regardless, you might want to
re-familiarize yourself with what the word "credo" means. It is a
statement of belief, a testimony of faith. It's alittle difficult to
assert that no Christian faith was condemned but Christian statements
of faith were. ??
>> We are asked to believe in a book which
>> is claimed by its adherants to be superior to and a correction of the
>> Bible
>A "correction" to the Bible? Where in the world did you get an idea like
>that? That's certainly _not_ our position.
In the introduction to the BoM (1981 Ed.), a quotation of Smith is
given in which he states, "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of
any book on earth, . . . and a man would get nearer to God by abiding
in its precepts, than by any other book."
It doesn't take superior logic to conclude the status to which the
Bible is religated. If the BoM is more correct, than it states more
correctly the material which the Bible itself fails to accomplish.
You say as much below.
In the Articles of Faith, the church states that it accepts the Bible
in so far as it is correctly translated. How the Bible is translated,
especially the NT, is not a matter of great controversy. Despite the
many traditions of manuscript authorities, there are no gross
deviations which even remotely obfuscate the basic meaning of the
text. The field of textual criticism has long since settled the
validity of the text of the NT. It's rather rudimentary to translate
it into English, German, Chinese, et al.
Translation isn't the problem, interpretation is.
That Smith believed the BoM was a correction to the Bible is
demonstrated by his numerous restatements of Bible passages in
wordings found nowhere else in the entire body of manuscript evidence.
See Journal of Discourses, Vol VI, Sermon by Jospeh Smith on the
creation. Also, E. F. Parry's transcription of Smith's proclamations
includes the following: "Many men say there is one God; the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say this is a strange
God anyhow . . all are to be crammed into one God." Smith goes on to
formulate his own version of the Godhead. I wouldn't call this a
healthy respect for the Bible. Especially from a man who was
unqualified to deal with it's translation or interpretation.
Furthermore, in Doctrine and Covenants, Sect 8, v1, Oliver Cowdery is
promised that he will "receive a knowledge concerning the engravings
of old records, which are ancient, which contain those parts of my
scripture of which has been spoken by the manifestation of my Spirit."
[poor grammar not mine].
Does this not speak of a need to ferret out the "truer" words of God
from the rest? Is this not then a correction of the Bible?
> As for being superior to the
>Bible, this could be considered correct only in that we believe it to be
>correctly translated. The Bible has errors in it, even additions beyond
>what was originally written.
And the BoM has no such corrective history? Your own modern editions
admit that corrections and amendations have been necessary to bring it
into conformance with the original. And how, precisely, was anyone
able to amend the text without access to the original manuscripts
(i.e. the plates), or worse, who would have had the special means to
re-translate them anyway?
And if that doesn't stretch all credibility to the max, a comparison
with the 1830 edition shows that many current passages are still in
serious variance with the first edition.
>If you can show a version of the Bible that is
>absolutely correctly translated 100%, you'd get no argument from us on
>total acceptance of it.
On what independent basis, except ipse dixit, can you demonstrate that
the BoM is even remotely correct as a translation. Critics of the
Bible may reject what the Bible teaches but any secular, unbiased
scholar of Hebrew or Greek can validate that it is correctly
translated. Can you support an identical claim for the BoM?
>> whose manuscript authority cannot begin to be compared to that
>> for the Bible.
>Depends entirely on what you mean be "compared" and "authority" here. You
>were too vague.
The Bible is supported by over 5,000 individual manuscripts of varying
quality and comprehesiveness. The variations are of so slight a
consequence that a "derived" original is wholly feasible without
having an actual autograph. Since the manuscripts are the equivalent
of facsimiles, we can look upon the virtual wording and in the
original language written.
Furthermore, the languages of the Bible remain thoroughly understood
to the present day. All a student need do to repeat the process of
translation, say, of the New Testament is to have a working knowledge
of Greek and simply gain access to photo facsimiles of readable
manuscripts.
That's what I meant by a rich manuscript authority for the Bible which
cannot be found for the Book of Mormon. There isn't even a single
primary source document available for use. We are left with only a
translation of that source document and are asked to believe that it
faithfully represents what was in the source.
>Which is pretty much irrelevant to the material itself. You can't find
>original manuscripts for the NT or OT either.
But I can produce reliable facsimiles of them. And written in
languages well known throughout the history of mankind and which don't
require the Urim and Thummim or a seer stone to understand. Can you?
> You're straying from consideration of beliefs and doctrine here.
Actually my point in this thread was to question the validity of
simply testing the fruits of Mormonism as sufficient to accept them as
Christians. A discussion which undermines the textual foundation for
the BoM, which is revered by them as equivalent to Scripture, goes to
that point.
>> It's translation was
>> purported to be effected by God but the original wording was penned
>> with the crudest of grammatical errors.
>Considering that the English language of the day didn't actually even
>_have_ an official grammar, and that it was penned according to the common
>spelling of the day, I'd say you're pretty much grasping at straws here.
Oh, come now. How is it that the English-speaking folks of that day
understood, memorized and cherished the verses of the King James Bible
written 300 years earlier in a high-falootin' language no one on the
continent spoke anymore? Besides, if it was the express wording of
the Smith translation that was God spoken, why would any God-fearing
Mormon tamper with it, as was the case almost immediately thereafter,
when folks were notably embarrassed by Smith's grammer.
>> We are furthermore asked to
>> accept the LDS redaction and correction of the Book of Mormon by
>> individuals who somehow managed to do so without access to the primary
>> source material or the means to translate it.
>You have a problem with adding punctuation? Fine. You can obtain a copy of
>the book before the punctuation was added. Just ask.
You're simply not being honest. You know as well as I do that a great
deal more than punctuation was added.
>> We are asked to accept as true an account which speaks of events,
>> peoples and times spanning almost a thousand years, and in all this
>> time didn’t manage to leave a single trace of their existence which
>> can be substantiated by competent independent authority.
>You are evidently very much unaware of the latest archaeological studies.
If you can call them such. When they catch the eye of such qualified
specialists in MesoAmerican studies as Michael Coe, I'll pay more
attention.
>> Even the
>> people themselves are a conflict in reason, doing things which the
>> faithful of Judah were expressly commanded not to do, changing their
>> traditions and customs contrary to that of traditional Judaism
>You'll have to explain yourself here.
This is turning into a thesis, so I'll attempt a brief answer which
you can expand if you wish.
The people of the BoM are said to be faithful Jews who fled Jerusalem
at the time of the Babylonian exile. If they were in fact faithful,
they would have followed the admonition of Jeremiah (27:14-17) to not
flee the city but to serve the Babylonians, "and live". They would
also have heeded the fate of Hananiah at the hand of God for
encouraging the people to flee the city.
That they would abandon the stated canonical language of their
ancestors and write their official and religious records in a language
abominable to them (Egyptian) is an inconscionable deviation from
their traditions.
That they would write on materials never used by the Jews for sacred
writings and in express violation of the provisions in their priestly
literature for the material authorized is yet another deviation from
their traditions.
>Further, you'll have to explain just why this should be expected,
>and why it would be considered important.
Unless you want to propose that these Jews were an unfaithful remnant
with no respect for the traditions which characterized their faith and
nation, you'll have to explain why such a faithful remnant would
deviate so severely from that which they would have vouchedsafe.
Since the faithful Jews who remained behind continued these
traditions, even in the wretched conditions of exile, it is not only
reasonable to expect that the BoM contingent do the same, it is a
burden of the BoM defenders to explain why this is not to be expected.
>> and in the end, for what? To have their entire race wiped out or
>dissipated
>What's your point? That part of the people were destroyed by the other part
>is not questioned. However, the _entire_ race was _not_ destroyed. A large
>group of them survived quite intact, and there's no indication from the
>book that they were "dissipated".
>> and finally to become the progenitors of a people whom the Mormons
>> have historically despised.
>"Historically despised"? You mean the indians here I presume. First, you
>assume that the indians are the ancestors of the BofM people. It is
>generally accepted that many of them probably are, but this is not
>necessarily doctrine. As for being despised, the LDS had their share of
>difficulties with the Indians to be sure, but no group treated the Utes
>better than the LDS did. As for being despised, all of the Indian tribes
>have been despised by the settlers in the US, as is well documented. The
>LDS certainly did them no worse, and in many instances far better, than the
>rest of the citizens of the country.
You have me at a disadvantage since my memory of a quotation is all
the serves me at present. I will attempt to substantiate it. The
gist is that those of the dark skinned races were considered unworthy
of higher knowledge, especially the secrets of God's revelations. My
point was that this was a rather sorry state to have devolved into for
a people who were supposedly following God's command to depart from
their homeland and encouraged by appearances that this was all for
some higher purpose.
>> Add to this the rather numerous LDS historical blunders which have
>> frequently demonstrated their rather loose grasp of careful
>> scholarship
>Which means what as far as doctrine is concerned? You have now not only
>veered from the path but gone entirely out of the field. This has nothing
>to do with doctrine or beliefs at all.
I would agree if it were not for the express statements by the
prophets and leadership of the church that these affairs were in
response to the commandments of God. That certainly connects their
polity and social actions to their doctrine does it not?
>You're simply stating your own
>prejudices now. But so be it. Indeed, there has been some loose scholarship
>in the past, but as more knowledge is acquired and assimilated, it is used
>as appropriate. Your example of the mural is one. But keep in mind that the
>mural was meant to depict a particular event. The background drawings are
>largely irrelevant to the event portrayed.
So it would have been OK to portray the Manhatten skyline in the
background?
>> Do you find these elements worthy of respect?
>Are most of your weak complainings above even relevant? No. For the most
>part, it's simply ramblings reflecting your own dissatisfaction.
This is just an attempt to ignore the issues. We're talking about
whether Mormonism is a credible, intelligent faith. I've raised more
than personal opinions by quoting your own literature and asking that
your doctrine simply make sense. This you call "ramblings". Why
don't you just deal with the issues I raise? If you feel they're
merely personal opinions and not appropriate observations, prove to me
that my concerns are merely private and other rational minds wouldn't
see the same issues I do.
If considerable aspects of Mormon doctrine aren't credible, pointing
to Mormon good works or their sincere care for family and brethren
can't offset it. Would you accept me as a Mormon if I had the same
good works and fruits many Mormons exhibit but I maintain that Smith
was not a prophet, was instead a charlaton and that he never received
a revelation from any messenger of God? Wouldn't my doctrine be as
important as my fruit?
MRH
Craig Anderson
Patrick C. Labbe RN MSN KT MPS 32^ <patl...@pdn.net> wrote in article
<3387C7...@pdn.net>...
> Please read "John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer, Builder, Scapegoat" by
Juanita Brooks, his
> granddaughter. It is very well researched and written and indeed BY and
other Church officals
> not only knew but APPROVED the Meadow Mountain Massacre. The Church even
issued an offical
> apology on the 100th ann. for the Church is role! BTW: The only man to be
executed was John
> Doyle Lee and he wasn't really even the leader. Children were taken from
the victims and
> distributed to "good" LDS families. There were horrors and the Church
knew about it and aided in
> those horrors.....
The book by Brooks is an attempt to by her to direct attention away from
John D. Lee and back on the church leaders. There were indeed leaders
involved in the massacre. But it went no higher than the stake president of
the area. BY did _NOT_ endorse the massacre, and this has been well
documented, Brooks misdirection notwithstanding.
Craig
Kermit Tensmeyer
In article <01bc6ac3$266520e0$e1a9dcc0@craiga>, "Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>
>The book by Brooks is an attempt to by her to direct attention away from
>John D. Lee and back on the church leaders. There were indeed leaders
>involved in the massacre. But it went no higher than the stake president of
>the area. BY did _NOT_ endorse the massacre, and this has been well
>documented, Brooks misdirection notwithstanding.
>
Silly me, here I thought that John D. Lee _was_ the stake president, and
that his instructions came from his foster father, who told him to kill every
one, using the example from the OT commenting that in this case "obiedance is
much better than sacrifice"
BY waited until it was too late, to send messengers, to tell his merry band
of crusaders, not to kill the childern but to wipe out everyone else.
remember the people of the wagon train, were some of the ringleaders of the
mob in missouri. Some had even bosted of killing and ravaging Lee's family at
Hahn's Mill.
BY claimed after the fact that john d lee had exceed the bounds and
ex-communicated him. Guess what.. that ex-communication was recinded back in
the '50's...
None of this is real clear cut
Craig Anderson
> If you're familiar with Mormon literature, you should know it's not
> really necessary to produce a passage about the Westminster Confession
> itself. In Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith - History 1:19) Smith
> testifies that the heavenly messenger proclaimed that "all their
> creeds were an abomination in his (God's) sight.", [parens mine].
> Unless you wish to argue that Smith elsewhere excluded Westiminster
> from the indictment?
As far as I know he did not. I personally would include the Westminster
Confession as being an anachronistic rationalization of the protestant
movement - but that's just me. I only mentioned the WC because you brought
it up first, but it's certainly not the only confession.
> >When was the Westminster Confession written? Over 1000 years after the
> >death of Christ and the apostles. Did any of them pen the words of the
> >confession? No. . .
>
> For all this furor about how it originated, you haven't shown why the
> contents of the creed should be regarded by Christ as an abomination.
I did a few months ago, but I didn't see you chime in. I suggest you
revisit DejaNews and see if they still have the original posts I made about
it. I discussed the WC and its points in some detail.
> It is nowhere an axiom that only the creeds of the apostles count.
> And you should note that the heavenly messenger did not single out
> these as an exception. It seems safe to conclude that by "all
> creeds" he includes the Apostle's Creed which did originate as close
> to the apostles as can be known. So your argument about distance in
> time from the apostles or Christ falls to the ground.
Au contraire. I find it so very fascinating how so many fundamentalist
Christians will whine and pout about how there can be no prophets anymore,
and no more revelation. Yet they think absolutely nothing of imposing such
things as the Westminster Confession into their doctrine, as though somehow
the interpretation of the creators of the document are somehow capable of
expressing the intent and intention of the teachings of the original
apostles thousands of years after the fact. The WC is an _interpretation_
of scripture, around which a belief system is created. But it isn't the
final word on what the apostles taught by any stretch of the imagination.
It's simply an attempt to justify their theology.
> You might try reading the Confession. As you do, I'd like to see you
> pick out and post the abominations which so offend Christ.
I have already done so. Check out dejanews sometime.
> >Rather, you are invited to pray about the words of Christ himself. He
was
> >the one who said that the _creeds_ of the religions of the day were
wrong.
> >_No_ Christian "faith" was condemned. As usual, the critics are reading
> >something into it that isn't there.
>
> I don't follow this. Where did Christ state that the creeds of other
> religions of the day were wrong? Even so, how does this explain why
> he was condemning those creeds which glorified his name?
You yourself quoted the verse from the PofGP wherein He said that the
creeds of the religions of the day were an abomination. Do I have to repeat
it? I don't understand your confusion. As for why He would condemn them, it
is perfectly logical in light of the fact that they were wrong, and they
led people to believe erroneously in an incorrect doctrine. The fact that
they glorified His name is partly the reason that He said that "they draw
near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me."
> And what is meant by "no Christian faith was condemned"?
No specific denomination was mentioned, nor was faith condemned.
> >> We are asked to believe in a book which
> >> is claimed by its adherants to be superior to and a correction of the
> >> Bible
>
> >A "correction" to the Bible? Where in the world did you get an idea like
> >that? That's certainly _not_ our position.
>
> In the introduction to the BoM (1981 Ed.), a quotation of Smith is
> given in which he states, "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of
> any book on earth, . . . and a man would get nearer to God by abiding
> in its precepts, than by any other book."
>
> It doesn't take superior logic to conclude the status to which the
> Bible is religated. If the BoM is more correct, than it states more
> correctly the material which the Bible itself fails to accomplish.
Such a concept doesn't mean the Bible is somehow inferior. We certainly
don't consider it to be such. Rather, the BofM is considered to be more
correct because the doctrines and precepts in the book haven't been altered
through mis-translation or the addition / subtraction of material by
scribes and such as time has worn on, as the Bible has. In that frame of
reference, the BofM is indeed the most correct.
> In the Articles of Faith, the church states that it accepts the Bible
> in so far as it is correctly translated. How the Bible is translated,
> especially the NT, is not a matter of great controversy. Despite the
> many traditions of manuscript authorities, there are no gross
> deviations which even remotely obfuscate the basic meaning of the
> text. The field of textual criticism has long since settled the
> validity of the text of the NT. It's rather rudimentary to translate
> it into English, German, Chinese, et al.
>
> Translation isn't the problem, interpretation is.
Sorry, no. Transaltion is also a problem because the text and its meaning
get changed in various translations, not to mention whole additions to
scripture such as the Johanine Comma (many thanks to Marc Shindler on this,
and I recommend you read his excellent treatment of the subject).
> That Smith believed the BoM was a correction to the Bible is
> demonstrated by his numerous restatements of Bible passages in
> wordings found nowhere else in the entire body of manuscript evidence.
> See Journal of Discourses, Vol VI, Sermon by Jospeh Smith on the
> creation. Also, E. F. Parry's transcription of Smith's proclamations
> includes the following: "Many men say there is one God; the Father,
> the Son, and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say this is a strange
> God anyhow . . all are to be crammed into one God." Smith goes on to
> formulate his own version of the Godhead. I wouldn't call this a
> healthy respect for the Bible. Especially from a man who was
> unqualified to deal with it's translation or interpretation.
Unqualified according to you, of course. But then, you are not qualified to
issue such a judgment either. As for his commentary on the Godhead, it
cannot be claimed to be a formulation of his own version of the Godhead,
but simply a statement of what the Godhead is, which is certainly not the
Trinitarian concept that so many interpret the scriptures as today. Since
Joseph actually _saw_ Christ, he indeed was qualified, as an actual
prophet, to deal with the translation and interpretation of the Bible. You
aren't required to believe that JS was a prophet - obviously you don't. But
to those who are willing to see the truth, it is plain that he was. His
statements, therefore, are quite valid. It is there, NOT a "correction" to
the Bible, since the same precepts are taught there.
> > As for being superior to the
> >Bible, this could be considered correct only in that we believe it to be
> >correctly translated. The Bible has errors in it, even additions beyond
> >what was originally written.
>
> And the BoM has no such corrective history? Your own modern editions
> admit that corrections and amendations have been necessary to bring it
> into conformance with the original. And how, precisely, was anyone
> able to amend the text without access to the original manuscripts
> (i.e. the plates), or worse, who would have had the special means to
> re-translate them anyway?
Adding punctuation distresses you? That's pretty much all it was, of
course. Joseph changed a couple other places to make the text plainer, but
since he (Joseph) was the one to do it, then there's not argument to be had
here.
> And if that doesn't stretch all credibility to the max, a comparison
> with the 1830 edition shows that many current passages are still in
> serious variance with the first edition.
Are you unaware that even the very first run of the book had 6 different
versions, all small typos created by the typesetter? There's no stretching
of credulity here at all.
> >If you can show a version of the Bible that is
> >absolutely correctly translated 100%, you'd get no argument from us on
> >total acceptance of it.
But since there's not, and never will be, that's why there's so much
dissention isn't there? Hence, the need for understanding the Bible "as far
as it is translated correctly."
> Furthermore, the languages of the Bible remain thoroughly understood
> to the present day. All a student need do to repeat the process of
> translation, say, of the New Testament is to have a working knowledge
> of Greek and simply gain access to photo facsimiles of readable
> manuscripts.
Hmmm, they're _still_ not the original manuscripts of the authors though.
> That's what I meant by a rich manuscript authority for the Bible which
> cannot be found for the Book of Mormon. There isn't even a single
> primary source document available for use. We are left with only a
> translation of that source document and are asked to believe that it
> faithfully represents what was in the source.
Yes, quite correct. Are you saying that you wouldn't be able to believe in
the Bible if you couldn't do a translation yourself?
> Actually my point in this thread was to question the validity of
> simply testing the fruits of Mormonism as sufficient to accept them as
> Christians. A discussion which undermines the textual foundation for
> the BoM, which is revered by them as equivalent to Scripture, goes to
> that point.
Hardly. Or need I remind you that faith is not based on "textual
foundation"? Is your faith based on so shallow a thing as that? I certainly
hope not. Further, let me remind you that, as originally pointed out, the
fruits of "Mormonism" are indeed good. Can a bad tree bring forth good
fruit? No. Further, you haven't "test" the fruits of "Mormonism" at all
(there actually is no "Mormonism"; let's use LDS shall we?)
> How is it that the English-speaking folks of that day
> understood, memorized and cherished the verses of the King James Bible
> written 300 years earlier in a high-falootin' language no one on the
> continent spoke anymore?
It was actually a common mode of written language, considered to be more
elegant than the common tongue.
> Besides, if it was the express wording of
> the Smith translation that was God spoken, why would any God-fearing
> Mormon tamper with it, as was the case almost immediately thereafter,
> when folks were notably embarrassed by Smith's grammer.
Oh? Who, precisely, was embarassed? (Oh, and the word is "grammar", not
"grammer", since you're so into this language thing). As for tampering with
it, who did so? Joseph made some corrections, but considering he was the
prophet who translated it, that shouldn't upset any one? Or are you just
pouting because someone put in punctuation and divided the book into
chapters and verses?
> You're simply not being honest. You know as well as I do that a great
> deal more than punctuation was added.
A "great deal" more? No sir! Joseph made a very few corrections, very few.
That vast majority of any changes were punctuation and the division into
chapters and verses.
> >You are evidently very much unaware of the latest archaeological
studies.
>
> If you can call them such. When they catch the eye of such qualified
> specialists in MesoAmerican studies as Michael Coe, I'll pay more
> attention.
Ah, so only statements from your preferred list of archaeologists count.
Yo, Kerry Shirts, are you reading this? This is where you step in bud. <g>
> The people of the BoM are said to be faithful Jews who fled Jerusalem
> at the time of the Babylonian exile. If they were in fact faithful,
> they would have followed the admonition of Jeremiah (27:14-17) to not
> flee the city but to serve the Babylonians, "and live". They would
> also have heeded the fate of Hananiah at the hand of God for
> encouraging the people to flee the city.
Oh please, this is really stretching. May I suggest that you actually read
the book? The only ones from Jerusalem are the original families of Lehi
and Ishmael, and the servant Zoram. As for as leaving, if you had read the
book you'd know that they left because Lehi was prophesying of Jerusalem's
imminent demise, and his life was being threatened for doing so, and the
Lord commanded him to leave.
> That they would abandon the stated canonical language of their
> ancestors and write their official and religious records in a language
> abominable to them (Egyptian) is an inconscionable deviation from
> their traditions.
Unconscionable? According to whom and by what authority? Nephi states that
he deliberately did not teach his people according to the learning of the
Jews. Or didn't you read that part?
> That they would write on materials never used by the Jews for sacred
> writings and in express violation of the provisions in their priestly
> literature for the material authorized is yet another deviation from
> their traditions.
Or maybe they wrote on the materials that they could find. As for priestly
literature, Nephi never claims to have been one of those priests, nor
required to obey such traditions. This is grasping at straws.
> Unless you want to propose that these Jews were an unfaithful remnant
> with no respect for the traditions which characterized their faith and
> nation, you'll have to explain why such a faithful remnant would
> deviate so severely from that which they would have vouchedsafe.
Rather, you ought to read the book itself and see why they did what they
did. They recognized the people of Jerusalem of that day as becoming
wicked, and soon to be conquered. They followed the traditions that
_mattered_, such as the law of Moses, all the while looking forward to the
coming of Christ. You are creating restrictions for them out of thin air
which they themselves never claimed adherence to nor a requirement for.
> >What's your point? That part of the people were destroyed by the other
part
> >is not questioned. However, the _entire_ race was _not_ destroyed. A
large
> >group of them survived quite intact, and there's no indication from the
> >book that they were "dissipated".
>
> >> and finally to become the progenitors of a people whom the Mormons
> >> have historically despised.
>
> >"Historically despised"? You mean the indians here I presume. First, you
> >assume that the indians are the ancestors of the BofM people. It is
> >generally accepted that many of them probably are, but this is not
> >necessarily doctrine. As for being despised, the LDS had their share of
> >difficulties with the Indians to be sure, but no group treated the Utes
> >better than the LDS did. As for being despised, all of the Indian tribes
> >have been despised by the settlers in the US, as is well documented. The
> >LDS certainly did them no worse, and in many instances far better, than
the
> >rest of the citizens of the country.
>
> You have me at a disadvantage since my memory of a quotation is all
> the serves me at present.
Which, I strongly suspect, was absorbed in toto from some critic's book.
The Tanners maybe?
> I will attempt to substantiate it. The
> gist is that those of the dark skinned races were considered unworthy
> of higher knowledge, especially the secrets of God's revelations.
Really? But what does the book itself say? Let's read it:
IINephi 26
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which
is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain
unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and
partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and
white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and
all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
> >> Add to this the rather numerous LDS historical blunders which have
> >> frequently demonstrated their rather loose grasp of careful
> >> scholarship
>
> >Which means what as far as doctrine is concerned? You have now not only
> >veered from the path but gone entirely out of the field. This has
nothing
> >to do with doctrine or beliefs at all.
>
> I would agree if it were not for the express statements by the
> prophets and leadership of the church that these affairs were in
> response to the commandments of God.
You'll have to provide direct references in context to prove such a point.
> This is just an attempt to ignore the issues. We're talking about
> whether Mormonism is a credible, intelligent faith. I've raised more
> than personal opinions by quoting your own literature and asking that
> your doctrine simply make sense. This you call "ramblings". Why
> don't you just deal with the issues I raise?
I have. You however simply don't want to see them. I suggest you read the
rebuttals to the polemics you have immersed yourself in.
(http://www.farmsresearch.com is a good place to start). Try actually
_reading_ the Book of Mormon if you want to make a point about it.
> If considerable aspects of Mormon doctrine aren't credible, pointing
> to Mormon good works or their sincere care for family and brethren
> can't offset it.
_All_ of the doctrine is absolutely credible. You haven't demonstrated
_anything_ regarding the doctrine per se. All of your statements have been
side issues and tangentials. Again, show me that you have some credible
standing by proving to me that you've read the book and therefore can make
commentary about it. Tell me about Korihor or Ether. Who are the sons of
Helaman? We'll start there and see how you do.
As for your continued gripe about the doctrine being wrong even though the
LDS exhibit good fruit, consider a few verses:
Matthew 7
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
Luke 6
43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit.
44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not
gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Craig
Tony & Tracy Broadhurst
Craig Anderson
Kermit Tensmeyer <ker...@ticnet.com> wrote in article
<5mfdaj$1b4...@news1-alterdial.uu.net>...
> In article <01bc6ac3$266520e0$e1a9dcc0@craiga>, "Craig Anderson"
<10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>
> >
> >The book by Brooks is an attempt to by her to direct attention away from
> >John D. Lee and back on the church leaders. There were indeed leaders
> >involved in the massacre. But it went no higher than the stake president
of
> >the area. BY did _NOT_ endorse the massacre, and this has been well
> >documented, Brooks misdirection notwithstanding.
> >
>
> Silly me, here I thought that John D. Lee _was_ the stake president
I was referring to "church leaders" as the the president and quorum of the
twelve.
> and
> that his instructions came from his foster father, who told him to kill
every
> one, using the example from the OT commenting that in this case
"obiedance is
> much better than sacrifice"
>
> BY waited until it was too late, to send messengers, to tell his merry
band
> of crusaders, not to kill the childern but to wipe out everyone else.
More correctly, BY never intended that they should kill everyone in that
group, and in his message told them to let the travelers go through without
incident. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that BY ever told them to kill
everyone first, and then told them to leave them all alone. It's more
likely that there was a flat-out break down in communication somewhere in
there.
> remember the people of the wagon train, were some of the ringleaders of
the
> mob in missouri. Some had even bosted of killing and ravaging Lee's
family at
> Hahn's Mill.
Which is a major part of what instigated all the emotions that led to the
massacre.
> BY claimed after the fact that john d lee had exceed the bounds and
> ex-communicated him. Guess what.. that ex-communication was recinded
back in
> the '50's...
>
> None of this is real clear cut
There are indeed some grey areas. Nevertheless, it is documented that BY's
message told them to leave the wagon train alone and let them pass through
without harm.
Craig
wilt
Tony & Tracy Broadhurst wrote:
>
> No. -- http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cults.htm
Yes. -- "http:" Book of Mormon, Bible, D&C, Pearl of Great Price
wilt
D Sergeant (CoMIR)
Will Purvine (lav...@spnt.com) wrote:
:
: Here I must indulge in a simple comparison of faiths that may put this
: whole thread to an end. Mormons are to Christians as Christians are to
: Jews. That is, the Christian believes in the temple documents of the Jew,
: plus some (the NT). The Christian faith is the child of Judaism, and the
: child looks upon the father (Judaism) with the same disdain that the father
: looks upon the child (Christianity). The Christians believe they have
: that the Christians have been decieved, possibly by Satan or some such.
:
: The Mormon church believes in the Temple documents (the Bible) of its
: father, the Christian church, plus some (BoM, D&C, PGP). Again, we have
: both the father (Christianity) looking upon the child (Mormonism) with
: disdain, and vice versa. The father believes the son has been decieved,
: possibly by Satan or some such. The son cannot believe the father is so
: unwilling to accept further revelation in the case of Jesus Christ.
:
: Will "And a little child shall lead them" Purvine
Great. That puts the thread to an end. Christians believe in the OT and NT,
and in Jesus' death on the cross for their sins. Jesus was a Jew, and
Christianity is the fulfilment of the Jewish scripture. Christianity does
not look with disdain upon Judasism, but rejoices when one Jew turns to
Jesus. Judaism has banned the preaching of Jesus Christ (in Jerusalem) yet
still looks for a Mesiah that Christianity says has already come.
The Mormon church believes in the OT (their translation and interpretation
thereof) and the NT (their translation and interpretation thereof - including
a different glossary for the meaning of terms than Jews, Christians, and
Greek scholars use) and they also believe in the BOM D&C PGP etc. They claim
to have come from Christianity and Judaism and that Christianity (not
Mormonism) is apostate and false. I have no idea how the Mormon church sees
Judaism, but it isn't Christianity so wouldn't have much bearing on this
thread.
The Mormons believe that God has exclusively revealed more to them, the
Christians believe that the Mormon church can't even accept what the NT
or OT say. Christians claim that the added Mormon scripture teaches lies,
and is against the Bible. Mormons claim that the Bible is wrong as it is
anyway. To a christian, the Mormon church is not christian. To the Mormon
church, the christian church is not christian.
The title Christian was first used for the disciples in Antioch (Acts 11)
after Paul and Barnabas taught them for a year. If anyone wants to claim
the title Christian, the letters of Paul are readable in the NT. From these
it is easy to find that: Repenting from sin, asking Jesus in your life, and
living as spirit rather than flesh will gain you eternal life.
There is no point in getting tied up in trying to discover truth from a
collection of falsehoods and false teaching (BOM D&C PGP Journal of Discources
etc.)
Fathers and sons have little to do with it except, the heavenly Father
agrees with His Only Son. Without believing on Jesus there is no way
to the Father.
Derek
Johnny-cat
<snip>
>
> The Mormons believe that God has exclusively revealed more to them,
Actually, it's not exclusively to us. He has revealed more to the world;
you just aren't listening. ;-)
the
> Christians believe that the Mormon church can't even accept what the NT
> or OT say.
Well, some Christians, anyway.
Christians claim that the added Mormon scripture teaches lies,
> and is against the Bible.
Again, some do.
Mormons claim that the Bible is wrong as it is
> anyway.
Patently false. You know, for all the "contradiction" arguing that goes
on, even among mainstream Christians, I don't know of any passage of the
Bible that we Mormons consider doctrinally wrong. We may disagree as to
its interpretation, but that is not the same as saying "the Bible is
wrong as it is, anyway."
To a christian, the Mormon church is not christian. To the Mormon
> church, the christian church is not christian.
Another false statement, Derek. We consider your doctrines wrong, but we
regognize all who accept Christ as Christians. You should, too.
>
> The title Christian was first used for the disciples in Antioch (Acts 11)
> after Paul and Barnabas taught them for a year. If anyone wants to claim
> the title Christian, the letters of Paul are readable in the NT. From these
> it is easy to find that: Repenting from sin, asking Jesus in your life, and
> living as spirit rather than flesh will gain you eternal life.
Nothing I do will gain for me eternal life. Christ requires these things
of me, but it is His atoning sacrifice that purchases eternal life for
me.
> There is no point in getting tied up in trying to discover truth from a
> collection of falsehoods and false teaching (BOM D&C PGP Journal of Discources
> etc.)
IOW, you don't believe in looking outside of the Bible for truth. I
understand invesigating something and deciding it's false, but this idea
that anything other than the Bible is to be rejected a priori makes no
sense to me.
>
> Fathers and sons have little to do with it except, the heavenly Father
> agrees with His Only Son. Without believing on Jesus there is no way
> to the Father.
>
> Derek
And you still haven't shown that we do not believe in Jesus. Until you
do, you have no right to call us non-Christians.
Johnny-cat, who is proud to be a restoration Christian
E. L. Hamm
Chris Lambert <ch...@lambert-bas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A Christian is someone who believes what it says in the Bible and
>nothing else. A mormon can not be a #Christian because they have added
>to the word of God.
>Chris Lambert
I don't know what Christian religion you are raised in, but the two I was
raised in stated that a true Christian is one who is Christ-like. And if
you read your Bible, you would also find that Christ said to go with the
spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. According to your
definition of Christian, Chris, then they would be going against that very
concept. :)
Michael R. Hagerty
PART B:
"Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>Michael R. Hagerty wrote:
>> Besides, if it was the express wording of
>> the Smith translation that was God spoken, why would any God-fearing
>> Mormon tamper with it, as was the case almost immediately thereafter,
>> when folks were notably embarrassed by Smith's grammer.
>Oh? Who, precisely, was embarassed? (Oh, and the word is "grammar", not
>"grammer", since you're so into this language thing).
Okay, you caught me with a misspell. At least I didn't claim that I
saw it in with my seer stone under divine inspiration.
As for who was embarrassed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure this out. The need to correct the type of blunders which
appear in the handwritten manuscript imply embarrassment, especially
when the LDS had gone on record about how the actual words were
divinely given. See below.
>As for tampering with
>it, who did so? Joseph made some corrections, but considering he was the
>prophet who translated it, that shouldn't upset any one? Or are you just
>pouting because someone put in punctuation and divided the book into
>chapters and verses?
You are certainly free to minimize the mis-spellings and grammatical
errors, but such a rebuttal seems rather ludicrous when one simply
pictures the most rudimentary aspects of the translation process.
Smith openly admits that he was unable to translate the plates unaided
or by means of his own abilities. So it seems painfully obvious that
the translated results could not be ther result of Smith's linguistic
analysis or skill. The exact wording must have come from the
intermediate means - the seers stones and spectacles.
In fact, in 1881 Joseph F. Smith said precisely this. He described
how the book was actually translated, ". . The Lord cuase each word
spelled as is it in the book to appear on the stones in short
sentences or words. . . . And if there was a word wrongly written or
even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there
. . and when corrected, the sentence would disappear as usual." This
is a quotation from the Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, residing at
the Utah State Historical Society.
You can't have it both ways, although it seems you'll try. The very
words, spelling and grammatical structure came from the stones. If
the translated results were not authorized during the process until
they were correct as written, then the misspellings and horrid
grammar are in. It doesn't seem logical to suppose that someone after
the fact would do what Smith, himself, was not allowed to do.
>> You're simply not being honest. You know as well as I do that a great
>> deal more than punctuation was added.
>A "great deal" more? No sir! Joseph made a very few corrections, very few.
>That vast majority of any changes were punctuation and the division into
>chapters and verses.
This presents a serious contradcition to what your own church
leadership said, above. If Smith couldn't alter the wording while
performing the translation, how did he justify making a "very few
corrections" of anything?
But, for the moment, I'll concede that "great deal" doesn't refer to
quantity. It does, however, refere to quality and significance. Do
you consider the following innocuous changes?
1 Nephi 13:40 changes from ". . that the Lamb of God is the Eternal
Father and Savior of the world" to ". . . Eternal Son of the Father
and Savior of the world."
Mosiah 21:28 changes from ". . King Benjamin had a gift from God . ."
to ". . King Mosiah had a gift from God . ."
Ether 4:1 reflects a similar change of names.
1 Nephi 13:32 changes from ". . state of awful woundedness . ." to
". . state of awful blindedness . ."
Mosiah 27:29 changes from ". . wrecked with eternal torment . ." to
". . racked with eternal torment . ."
You intend to propose that being mistaken about whether the Lamb of
God is the Eternal Father or His Son is a trivial point of punctuation
or grammar? Is it OK that the divine agency which effected the stones
was confused about whether it was Benjamin or Mosiah, especially when
it was made clear in chapters 6 and 7 that Benjamin was already dead?
There's an anecdote given in one of my philosophy classes. A man went
to his doctor assured that he was dead. Nothing the doctor said could
convince him otherwise. Finally, the doctor stated, "Dead men don't
bleed, do they?" The man hestitated but agreed. Whereupon the doctor
picked up a scalpal and stabbed him. Blood spurted forth; to which
the man replied, "How 'bout that. Dead men do bleed after all."
I think we're facing a similar case in this discussion.
>> >You are evidently very much unaware of the latest archaeological
>studies.
>>
>> If you can call them such. When they catch the eye of such qualified
>> specialists in MesoAmerican studies as Michael Coe, I'll pay more
>> attention.
>Ah, so only statements from your preferred list of archaeologists count.
>Yo, Kerry Shirts, are you reading this? This is where you step in bud. <g>
My preferred list? You're obviously unfamiliar with his credentials.
A great many more folks than piddly ol' me think he's rather capable
in the field. He's the foremost recognized authority in MesoAmerican
archaeology and Pre-Columbian civilizations. That *is* a subject
germain to the Book of Mormon, is it not? I'm surprised you haven't
found him worth consulting, or at least given him an honorable
mention. But then I guess you have your own preferred list.
>> The people of the BoM are said to be faithful Jews who fled Jerusalem
>> at the time of the Babylonian exile. If they were in fact faithful,
>> they would have followed the admonition of Jeremiah (27:14-17) to not
>> flee the city but to serve the Babylonians, "and live". They would
>> also have heeded the fate of Hananiah at the hand of God for
>> encouraging the people to flee the city.
>Oh please, this is really stretching. May I suggest that you actually read
>the book? The only ones from Jerusalem are the original families of Lehi
>and Ishmael, and the servant Zoram.
I have actually read it, Craig. And BTW, I didn't even remotely
qualify how many people were involved. So your correction to limit
the scope was a waste of time.
>As for as leaving, if you had read the
>book you'd know that they left because Lehi was prophesying of Jerusalem's
>imminent demise, and his life was being threatened for doing so, and the
>Lord commanded him to leave.
So Jeremiah was simply mistaken? Or was it was God's express command
to not leave the city, except for those to whom God spoke separately,
thus contradicting himself? It doesn't bother you to propose that one
man of God is out there preaching "Jerusalem is fallen, do not flee
the city; serve Babylon and live" and another man of God is out there
preaching "Jerusalem is fallen, but as for me, I'm outa here"? Need I
also point out that Jeremiah's life was also being threatened. What a
total contrast in his response to that of Lehi. But according to you,
I'm stretching.
>> That they would abandon the stated canonical language of their
>> ancestors and write their official and religious records in a language
>> abominable to them (Egyptian) is an inconscionable deviation from
>> their traditions.
>Unconscionable? According to whom and by what authority?
Ever heard of the Talmud, Craig? It's another one of those books you
need to acquaint yourself with. Now I just know you're going to argue
that it wasn't compiled until long after the events of the BofM, so it
can't apply to the Jews of those times. You only have to ask the Jews
themselves to find out that the material represents a compendium of
what had been their consistent tradition from most ancient times.
Just because it was compiled at a later date doesn't mean that it's
contents had to have come into being just prior to its publication.
>Nephi states that
>he deliberately did not teach his people according to the learning of the
>Jews. Or didn't you read that part?
If we all took Nephi's word for it, Craig, we wouldn't be having this
discussion. Do you take everyone for complete idiots? It's because
Nephi's statements don't square with what every faithful Jew has done
in any country he's migrated to that prevents everyone but the LDS
from treating it authoritatively.
>> That they would write on materials never used by the Jews for sacred
>> writings and in express violation of the provisions in their priestly
>> literature for the material authorized is yet another deviation from
>> their traditions.
>Or maybe they wrote on the materials that they could find.
Or maybe they wrote on flower petals and pressed them into books. Or
maybe they wrote each word on a bead and strung them into long
necklaces. You just can't make things up as you go along.
The traditional materials sanctioned by the priests and scribes were
readily available, even in the Americas. There were no special
circumstances which necessitated deviation from what they all knew to
be traditionally approved.
>As for priestly
>literature, Nephi never claims to have been one of those priests, nor
>required to obey such traditions. This is grasping at straws.
So, you're capitulating on the Nephi clan being faithful, devout Jews
acting in obedience to God? It doesn't matter whether Nephi was a
priest or scribe or a Fuller Brush man. He and everyone with him knew
what was required for producing and preserving sacred documents. You
didn't have to be a priest to obey and carry on the tradition.
If your next point is that Nephi was in no way obligated to maintain
those traditions, I'll be forced to remind you that the only group of
Jews who failed to keep their traditions no matter where they were
made to live in the world are those who chose to abandon conservative
Judaism and assimilate into the nations. Are you prepared to describe
the Nephites this way?
>> Unless you want to propose that these Jews were an unfaithful remnant
>> with no respect for the traditions which characterized their faith and
>> nation, you'll have to explain why such a faithful remnant would
>> deviate so severely from that which they would have vouchedsafe.
>Rather, you ought to read the book itself and see why they did what they
>did. They recognized the people of Jerusalem of that day as becoming
>wicked, and soon to be conquered. They followed the traditions that
>_mattered_, such as the law of Moses, all the while looking forward to the
>coming of Christ. You are creating restrictions for them out of thin air
>which they themselves never claimed adherence to nor a requirement for.
You can't just make up Judaism to your own liking. You have to take a
serious hint from their history and writings. I know it's awfully
nice to pick and choose the parts of Judaism which fit your story, but
it's simply a violation of history and the legacy of their attitude
toward tradition. Besides, despite your wishes to the contrary, the
Jews themselves are the best authority on their ethnicity, traditional
attitude and faith, not the LDS.
It was specifically the wicked, in abandoning the traditions which
marked their commitment to their God, who brought about their
destruction. The traditions, themselves, are not culpable nor subject
to being re-thought.
>Which, I strongly suspect, was absorbed in toto from some critic's book.
>The Tanners maybe?
My, we are getting testy. No, actually, I tend to avoid statements
that aren't substantiated and I do a lot of my own research. Where
the Tanners show substantiated documentation, especially from
authenticated LDS publications, I take some notice. Plus, I've
bounced the claims of the Mormon debunkers off some LDS friends I have
to get a balanced view before formulating an opinion. I will say,
that on many occasions, the LDS folks I've talked to often resort to
"ipse dixit" when they have no effective counter explanations.
>> I will attempt to substantiate it. The
>> gist is that those of the dark skinned races were considered unworthy
>> of higher knowledge, especially the secrets of God's revelations.
>Really? But what does the book itself say? Let's read it:
>IINephi 26
>33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which
>is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain
>unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and
>partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and
>white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and
>all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
You chose, of course, to avoid the problems of 2 Nephi 30:6. Now I'm
well aware that "white and delightsome people" has been changed to
read "pure and delightsome people". But not in the earliest editions
which Smith had a hand in and certainly not in the original manuscript
which came divinely worded.
But more specific to the issue is 2 Nephi 5:24, where blackness of
skin was a sign of God's curse. Now I realize that later in the book
there is a request to no longer regard their skin. But this is
conditional upon their abandoning the practices which cursed them.
In Alma 3:6-11, it is clear that for those who did, the color of their
skin remained a sign of their rejection and curse.
Now my point was originally to say that the people eventually devolved
into what we now know as the Central and certain Northern Indians.
Have they practiced the faith and traditions of the Nephites? Have
they not exhibited in all their known history practices which would
never have been approved by the Nephites. Yet that is the state into
which the whole enterprise devolved. One has to question whether it
would have been better to have heeded Jeremiah's exhortation and to
have remained in Babylon.
>> >> Add to this the rather numerous LDS historical blunders which have
>> >> frequently demonstrated their rather loose grasp of careful
>> >> scholarship
>You'll have to provide direct references in context to prove such a point.
For starters, here's one that shows problems in keeping their own
history consistent. Doctrine and Covenants 5:26, Martin Harris
affirms that the plates were shown to the witnesses "by the Power of
God". The problem is in the need for the "Power of God", which is
taken to mean special revelation, when the plates were still in the
custody of Smith for the purpose of translation as clearly shown later
in D&C 17:1.
Also, Harris prevaricated some five years later in Anthon's office
about whether he'd seen the plates. First he states he saw them.
Then, when pressed, he admits that he only saw them with the "eye of
faith".
Second, it is said that John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic
priesthood on Smith. Last I recall, it's sorta impossible for
someone who is not of the house of Levi to bestow the Levitical
priesthood on anyone. Of course, if you're just making things up as
you go along, details aren't important.
Third, the term "reformed Egyptian" is a veritable conundrum. When
the term is used anywhere else in linguistics, it means that a
language is written in the characters of another language. The case
of Chinese is an example. The Yale or Wade-Giles romanizations are
instances of reformed Chinese, or Chinese written in Roman letters
instead of logographs. Hence, reformed Egyptian would refer to
Egyptian written in either Roman letters, Greek or even Hebrew.
But this doesn't bother Smith & Co. The BofM is described as Hebrew
written in the heiroglyphs of Egyptian and other symbols and called
"reformed Egyptian". Also, in scholarly circles, there is no single
instance of any form of Egyptian called "reformed".
Fourth, the LDs have repeatedly stated that there is ample evidence
pointed to the events in the Book of Mormon in the New World. The
Hill of Cumorah is stated to be the scene of the greatest proposed
battle in the history of North America, involving half a million men.
Yet not one piece of archaelogical evidence has ever been found to
substantiate that anything more than the grazing of bovines happened
there.
Even John Sorenson, your Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at
BYU and highly published, admits this and more, "After nearly 150
years . . we Mormons have been unable confidently to pin down the
location of a single city, identify even one route they traversed . .
in their American promised land." Dr. Christensen at BYU adds to
this, "In the first place, the statement that the Book of Mormon has
already been proved by archaeology is misleading." . . "That such an
idea could exist indicates the ignorance of many of our people with
regard to what is going on in the historical and anthropological
sciences. "
I've saved the best for last. In 1959, a member of the Council of the
Seventy described Quezalcoatl as none other than Jesus Christ himself.
The fact that Queztalcoatl was a bloodthirsty pagan deity in contrast
to every known fact about Jesus Christ didn't seem to bother him. Nor
the fact that Queztalcoatl can be dated back to 2000 B.C.
>> This is just an attempt to ignore the issues. We're talking about
>> whether Mormonism is a credible, intelligent faith. I've raised more
>> than personal opinions by quoting your own literature and asking that
>> your doctrine simply make sense. This you call "ramblings". Why
>> don't you just deal with the issues I raise?
>I have. You however simply don't want to see them. I suggest you read the
>rebuttals to the polemics you have immersed yourself in.
>(http://www.farmsresearch.com is a good place to start). Try actually
>_reading_ the Book of Mormon if you want to make a point about it.
Condescension doesn't go well with your tie. I know it looks good in
print, but it's always a good idea to have your facts in place first.
>> If considerable aspects of Mormon doctrine aren't credible, pointing
>> to Mormon good works or their sincere care for family and brethren
>> can't offset it.
>_All_ of the doctrine is absolutely credible. You haven't demonstrated
>_anything_ regarding the doctrine per se.
Awww, sure I have. Do we have to go over this again? I've been
discussing two major points: 1) the credibility of the Joseph Smith
First Vision, especially the bit about all other churches being wrong
and their creeds being an abomination, 2) the belief by all LDS that
the Book of Mormon is equal to Scripture. Unless you don't agree
these are points of LDS doctrine?
I've taken considerable time and space to show why these assertions
are not credible nor do they comply with the other testimony you
recognize, the Bible. To believe in something which can't be
supported (except by saying Joseph Smith said it, or Nephi prophesied
it) affects the credibility of LDS beliefs in general, since these two
things are so elemental to that faith. To state without support that
Smith proclamations and BofM records are just "true" is
self-fulfilling, which doesn't demonstrate anything.
> All of your statements have been
>side issues and tangentials. Again, show me that you have some credible
>standing by proving to me that you've read the book and therefore can make
>commentary about it. Tell me about Korihor or Ether. Who are the sons of
>Helaman? We'll start there and see how you do.
As in Bible Trivia? I'd rather stick with the areas which present
credibility issues. It's kinda like proposing that we talk about
speciation and variation in biology (which present no problems for the
Christian) and avoid talking about the transitional forms issue which
still plagues evolution.
MRH
Michael R. Hagerty
Due to the length of the present discussion, I've chosen to split this
up into two posts.
PART A:
"Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
>> It is nowhere an axiom that only the creeds of the apostles count. . .
>Au contraire. I find it so very fascinating how so many fundamentalist
>Christians will whine and pout about how there can be no prophets anymore,
>and no more revelation. Yet they think absolutely nothing of imposing such
>things as the Westminster Confession into their doctrine, as though somehow
>the interpretation of the creators of the document are somehow capable of
>expressing the intent and intention of the teachings of the original
>apostles . .
This, I'm afraid is a side-step from the pertinent issue. What ever
you may think or know about the WC and how its statements came to be
written, an examination of their content is the only real issue. It
remains, in the end a witness and glorification of God, even if it was
written five minutes before Smith's First Vision. It is the attempt
to make us believe that Christ would have condemned such words as
abominable (regardless of whether they were written by imperfect men
or a chimpanzee) that is so theologically contradictory.
We must somehow believe that the words of the Apostle's Creed, "I
believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son
our Lord, who was born fo the Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary; . . the
forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body; the everlasting
life." or these from the WC, "The souls of the righteous, being made
perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heaves, where they
behold the face of God in light and Glory . ." are regarded by
Christ, the object of this praise, to be abominations.
You may question whether they represent canonical truth, you may
question whether they represent accurate descriptions of what will
actually come to pass, but you cannot with a straight face tell the
world that Christ regards them as abominable corruptions. If so, then
all of our prayers, yours and mine, must be likewise regarded and even
more so. For very few of us can frame our prayers in such terms as
these, but often state things in prayer which even impune God's
righteousness. He understands our weaknesses yet still enjoys our
imperfect attempts to give Him glory.
>> You might try reading the Confession. As you do, I'd like to see you
>> pick out and post the abominations which so offend Christ.
>I have already done so. Check out dejanews sometime.
If it was as far back as you say, it doubtful I'll see it. What a
shame.
>> I don't follow this. Where did Christ state that the creeds of other
>> religions of the day were wrong? Even so, how does this explain why
>> he was condemning those creeds which glorified his name?
>You yourself quoted the verse from the PofGP wherein He said that the
>creeds of the religions of the day were an abomination. Do I have to repeat
>it?
I've had this same bewildering conversation with someone else
recently. Your point above somehow takes as a brute given that the
supposed quotations of Christ by the messenger which were reported and
published by Smith are regarded by all as canonical, authoritative
Scripture. I thought your point was that there was precedence
elsewhere which corroborated Smith's report of the messengers
indictment.
> I don't understand your confusion. As for why He would condemn them, it
>is perfectly logical in light of the fact that they were wrong, and they
>led people to believe erroneously in an incorrect doctrine. The fact that
>they glorified His name is partly the reason that He said that "they draw
>near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me."
Even if I should grant that the people were deserving of His censure
(which I don't), how does this make the words of praise and glory
(albeit falsly applied) abominations? It would be like my saying that
because I can point to false and corrupt Christians, the New Testament
passages they read from time to time must also be somehow to blame and
must certainly also be corrupt. Such an argument would be no more
credible than yours.
>Such a concept doesn't mean the Bible is somehow inferior. We certainly
>don't consider it to be such. . .
Craig, you might want to re-read the Introduction to a modern printing
of the BofM. Your leadership claims just the opposite, hence the need
to clarify that the current versions have been brought in line with
the earliest editions. So, in that regard (and only that regard), the
Bible and the BofM are on the same playing field.
>> Translation isn't the problem, interpretation is.
>Sorry, no. Transaltion is also a problem because the text and its meaning
>get changed in various translations, not to mention whole additions to
>scripture such as the Johanine Comma (many thanks to Marc Shindler on this,
>and I recommend you read his excellent treatment of the subject).
You really need to read up on this subject, like the excellent
reference "The New Testament Text" by Bruce Metzger (Oxford Press).
Of course, there have been mis-translations along the centuries.
Whole traditions of translations have developed over time. That
doesn't mitigate one iota against the ability to derive a reliable New
Testament text. It's precisely the systematic comparisons of these
extant manuscripts which makes the verity of the NT text more assured
than any other document from the ancient past. Your criticism is
actually the answer to your comment. You need to read Metzger.
>> . . . Especially from a man who was unqualified to deal with it's
>>translation or interpretation.
>Unqualified according to you, of course. But then, you are not qualified to
>issue such a judgment either.
I apply the qualifications recognized by competent, careful
scholarship. He was not even remotely skilled in the original
languages of the Bible and had no formal training in hermeneutics.
But there are men who don't and do rather well with the Holy Spirit as
their instructor. However, they usually have enough sense not to
claim their efforts as the most correct of all books. The true test
of their qualifications, however, is whether their interpretations
stack up against the revelation of God already faithfully given.
And of course, here is precisely where the rub is. The passages in
the Bible which contradict Smith just happen to be the passages which
he proclaims are corrupt. The convenience of this assertion is simply
too obvious to be credible. He would have done better to have shown
their corruption independent of his "ipse dixit" pronouncements and in
the manner which scholarship commends.
>> And the BoM has no such corrective history? Your own modern editions
>> admit that corrections and amendations . .
>Adding punctuation distresses you? That's pretty much all it was, of
>course. Joseph changed a couple other places to make the text plainer, but
>since he (Joseph) was the one to do it, then there's not argument to be had
>here.
Like I said and demonstrate later (PART B), you know as well as I do
that he did more than correct punctuation. Besides, you admit below
that it really wouldn't matter anyway, because it was Joseph and that
stops the mouths of all who might complain.
>> And if that doesn't stretch all credibility to the max, a comparison
>> with the 1830 edition shows that many current passages are still in
>> serious variance with the first edition.
>Are you unaware that even the very first run of the book had 6 different
>versions, all small typos created by the typesetter? There's no stretching
>of credulity here at all.
See your similar comment in PART B.
>> >If you can show a version of the Bible that is
>> >absolutely correctly translated 100%, you'd get no argument from us on
>> >total acceptance of it.
>But since there's not, and never will be, that's why there's so much
>dissention isn't there?
Not because it's translated incorrectly. As I stated before, any
competent student in the classics can verify the translation. The
dissention is over what the text means not what it says.
>> Furthermore, the languages of the Bible remain thoroughly understood
>> to the present day. All a student need do to repeat the process of
>> translation, say, of the New Testament is to have a working knowledge
>> of Greek and simply gain access to photo facsimiles of readable
>> manuscripts.
>Hmmm, they're _still_ not the original manuscripts of the authors though.
Since I demonstrated rather clearly that it isn't necessary to have
the autographs to verify the text, your point would be . .
>. . Are you saying that you wouldn't be able to believe in
>the Bible if you couldn't do a translation yourself?
I know it would be nice if I were, but I'm not. It's the fact that
the opportunity is there for those who wish to that is of chief
importance. It's the fact that text is openly available to pulbic
scrutiny and to those who might be skeptical of its correctness in
translation.
This is a major element of historicity. When a document, or truth
claim or whatever, is made in a falsifiable environment and remains
unchallenged in principle substance, this goes to it's authenticity.
Unfortunately, this remains a major weakness for the BofM.
>> Actually my point in this thread was to question the validity of
>> simply testing the fruits of Mormonism as sufficient to accept them as
>> Christians. A discussion which undermines the textual foundation for
>> the BoM, which is revered by them as equivalent to Scripture, goes to
>> that point.
>Hardly. Or need I remind you that faith is not based on "textual
>foundation"? Is your faith based on so shallow a thing as that?
I wouldn't call the New Testament a shallow thing if I were you. In
case you missed it, it is the testimony of Jesus, his life and
teaching recorded there which comprise the verbal elements of
everyman's faith who calls himself Christian. Are you proposing that
men may set aside the NT and ask God to reveal it all over again to
them personnally? Even LDS leadership now acknowledge that to
undermine the Bible is self-defeating for Mormonism.
And what do you call the belief that the BofM is the most correct book
ever written? The LDS has proclaimed it as a key foundation of your
faith along with the testimony of Joseph Smith's First Vision, all of
which are " texts". Is your faith not based on a textual foundation?
>I certainly
>hope not. Further, let me remind you that, as originally pointed out, the
>fruits of "Mormonism" are indeed good. Can a bad tree bring forth good
>fruit? No.
If fruit was the only criteria, and good works the only fruit, your
point would be valid. Jesus never implied that good works were the
only fruit to be looked for. You violated one of the cardinal rules of
interpretation: the context of any verse is the entire Scripture.
Many passages elsewhere in the NT stipulate that what one teaches and
its effect on others is just as important as the deeds one performs.
It was important to God that his people have sound doctrine and He
provided considerable space on the subject.
>Further, you haven't "test" the fruits of "Mormonism" at all
>(there actually is no "Mormonism"; let's use LDS shall we?)
Since LDS uniquely identifies the people of Mormonism and their church
organization, and Mormonism more readily identifies the doctrine and
system of belief, I'd have difficulty trying to make the other fit.
We don't say Methodist, we say Methodism, it's not Catholic, but
Catholicism, not Baptist but protestantism. You can't say LDSism can
you? And "LDS system of doctrine and teaching" is too long.
Latter-Day Saints is not a system of belief, it's a fellowship of
people. Mormonism is readily understood by everyone to mean your
system of beliefs.
I can try to use LDS doctrine, but I'm bound to slip.
>> How is it that the English-speaking folks of that day
>> understood, memorized and cherished the verses of the King James Bible
>> written 300 years earlier in a high-falootin' language no one on the
>> continent spoke anymore?
>It was actually a common mode of written language, considered to be more
>elegant than the common tongue.
Ahmmmm. You did a rather good job of missing the point here. You
were defending Smith's bad grammar and usage on the basis that this is
how most everyone in his time spoke anyway. My response was that if
they were so poor in the king's English, how did they manage with
something far more sophisticated? Since, you've conceded that it was
considered more "elegant than the common tongue", it seems this would
make King James English a far better candidate than the deplorable
usage of Smith. After all, it was good enough to remain in use for
two centuries and was something folks in Smith's time were already
quite used to.
Continued in PART B . .
MRH
Craig Anderson
> PART B:
>
> "Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>
> >Michael R. Hagerty wrote:
>
<snip>
> As for who was embarrassed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
> figure this out. The need to correct the type of blunders which
> appear in the handwritten manuscript imply embarrassment, especially
> when the LDS had gone on record about how the actual words were
> divinely given. See below.
This is a presumption entirely of your own making. You are assuming
"embarassment" where none exists. Have you never heard of an author
correcting glitches of the first edition?
>
> >As for tampering with
> >it, who did so? Joseph made some corrections, but considering he was the
> >prophet who translated it, that shouldn't upset any one? Or are you just
> >pouting because someone put in punctuation and divided the book into
> >chapters and verses?
>
> You are certainly free to minimize the mis-spellings and grammatical
> errors, but such a rebuttal seems rather ludicrous when one simply
> pictures the most rudimentary aspects of the translation process.
Joseph dictated the entire book to scribes as he translated it. The
mis-spellings and grammatical errors were introduced by those scribes, not
Joseph. Since there wasn't even a definitive grammar at the time, this is
hardly any sort of real criticism.
> Smith openly admits that he was unable to translate the plates unaided
> or by means of his own abilities. So it seems painfully obvious that
> the translated results could not be ther result of Smith's linguistic
> analysis or skill. The exact wording must have come from the
> intermediate means - the seers stones and spectacles.
Incorrect. The exact wording came from translation, which, as anybody who
has ever translated something before knows, is never a word-for-word
process.
> In fact, in 1881 Joseph F. Smith said precisely this. He described
> how the book was actually translated, ". . The Lord cuase each word
> spelled as is it in the book to appear on the stones in short
> sentences or words. . . . And if there was a word wrongly written or
> even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there
> . . and when corrected, the sentence would disappear as usual." This
> is a quotation from the Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, residing at
> the Utah State Historical Society.
And I challenge this. Firstly, Joseph F. Smith was giving simply his own
understanding - he never did any of the scribing. Secondly, the above
description was originally stated by, hmmmm, Emma if I remember precisely.
Thirdly, the letter-correct concept referred to _proper names only_, not
every single word. Joseph would state a word, and the scribe would repeat
it and write it, and then they would move on to the next one.
The scribe who worked with Joseph through the vast majority of the book was
Oliver Cowdery and he left no description of the process at all. Joseph's
description of the process was told by him this way: it was translated by
the gift and power of God. That's all. Anything else is speculation and
hazy recollection by those least knowledgable about the process.
> You can't have it both ways, although it seems you'll try. The very
> words, spelling and grammatical structure came from the stones.
Except that neither you, nor anyone else, truly knows what the actual
process was. So any attempts to discredit the process based on such hearsay
is absolutely inadmissable.
> >A "great deal" more? No sir! Joseph made a very few corrections, very
few.
> >That vast majority of any changes were punctuation and the division into
> >chapters and verses.
>
> This presents a serious contradcition to what your own church
> leadership said, above.
Hey, any person can say what they choose when giving their own opinions. It
means nothing.
> Do you consider the following innocuous changes?
>
> 1 Nephi 13:40 changes from ". . that the Lamb of God is the Eternal
> Father and Savior of the world" to ". . . Eternal Son of the Father
> and Savior of the world."
A correction by Joseph simply to clarify the text. But since Christ is the
Father and the Son, the verse doesn't change meaning at all.
> Mosiah 21:28 changes from ". . King Benjamin had a gift from God . ."
> to ". . King Mosiah had a gift from God . ."
A correction by Joseph. Or perhaps, since you seem to read the anti
literature so well, you could explain for us just _which_ Mosiah was being
referred to here, hmmmm?
> Ether 4:1 reflects a similar change of names.
>
> 1 Nephi 13:32 changes from ". . state of awful woundedness . ." to
> ". . state of awful blindedness . ."
>
> Mosiah 27:29 changes from ". . wrecked with eternal torment . ." to
> ". . racked with eternal torment . ."
These are "significant"? According to whom? You? No, I do not find such
corrections significant at all. If you want to talk about significant
changes, let's talk about the far more thousands of corrections made to the
KJV of the Bible.
> >Ah, so only statements from your preferred list of archaeologists count.
> >Yo, Kerry Shirts, are you reading this? This is where you step in bud.
<g>
>
> My preferred list? You're obviously unfamiliar with his credentials.
No, I'm aware of the fellow's credentials. I just find it interesting that
you state that he is the _only_ archaeologist you will accept. Heck, if you
can't refute the other side, just limit the playing field and declare
victory. Nice.
> I have actually read it, Craig.
If so, you're statements don't reflect it.
> And BTW, I didn't even remotely
> qualify how many people were involved. So your correction to limit
> the scope was a waste of time.
And you missed the larger point, which was that the traditions of the
Hebrews pretty much fell by the wayside when the group arrived in the new
world. It simply wasn't applicable any more.
> >As for as leaving, if you had read the
> >book you'd know that they left because Lehi was prophesying of
Jerusalem's
> >imminent demise, and his life was being threatened for doing so, and the
> >Lord commanded him to leave.
>
> So Jeremiah was simply mistaken? Or was it was God's express command
> to not leave the city, except for those to whom God spoke separately,
> thus contradicting himself? It doesn't bother you to propose that one
> man of God is out there preaching "Jerusalem is fallen, do not flee
> the city; serve Babylon and live" and another man of God is out there
> preaching "Jerusalem is fallen, but as for me, I'm outa here"? Need I
> also point out that Jeremiah's life was also being threatened. What a
> total contrast in his response to that of Lehi. But according to you,
> I'm stretching.
Interesting how you impose such restrictions on the Lord. No, Nephi
explicitly states that Jeremiah had been cast into prison, and that other
prophets besides Lehi were warning the people. All we know is that the Lord
told _Lehi_ to leave. What? You don't think the Lord could so such a thing?
> >> That they would abandon the stated canonical language of their
> >> ancestors and write their official and religious records in a language
> >> abominable to them (Egyptian) is an inconscionable deviation from
> >> their traditions.
>
> >Unconscionable? According to whom and by what authority?
>
> Ever heard of the Talmud, Craig? It's another one of those books you
> need to acquaint yourself with.
More condescensions. Sigh. Yes, I'm familiar with it. Are you familiar with
the recent discoveries of how closely intertwined the Hebrews and the
Egyptians actually were, and the cross-language knowledge that existed
between them? No, I didn't think so.
> >> That they would write on materials never used by the Jews for sacred
> >> writings and in express violation of the provisions in their priestly
> >> literature for the material authorized is yet another deviation from
> >> their traditions.
>
> >Or maybe they wrote on the materials that they could find.
>
> Or maybe they wrote on flower petals and pressed them into books. Or
> maybe they wrote each word on a bead and strung them into long
> necklaces. You just can't make things up as you go along.
Or maybe, as Nephi said, he was commanded to write on metal plates. Hey, as
long as you're imposing restrictions where none exist, go ahead and write
on flower petals. This is becoming tedious awfully fast.
> >As for priestly
> >literature, Nephi never claims to have been one of those priests, nor
> >required to obey such traditions. This is grasping at straws.
>
> So, you're capitulating on the Nephi clan being faithful, devout Jews
> acting in obedience to God?
I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that Nephi wrote on the material the
Lord told him to write on. He himself said that he didn't understand why
the Lord wanted him to do it, but the Lord told him to, and therefore he
was. Sounds like faithful obedience to me.
> >Rather, you ought to read the book itself and see why they did what they
> >did. They recognized the people of Jerusalem of that day as becoming
> >wicked, and soon to be conquered. They followed the traditions that
> >_mattered_, such as the law of Moses, all the while looking forward to
the
> >coming of Christ. You are creating restrictions for them out of thin air
> >which they themselves never claimed adherence to nor a requirement for.
>
> You can't just make up Judaism to your own liking. You have to take a
> serious hint from their history and writings. I know it's awfully
> nice to pick and choose the parts of Judaism which fit your story, but
> it's simply a violation of history and the legacy of their attitude
> toward tradition. Besides, despite your wishes to the contrary, the
> Jews themselves are the best authority on their ethnicity, traditional
> attitude and faith, not the LDS.
Nor do we claim to be, and you're continual insistence that somehow we are
is becoming monotonous. Sigh. No, I'm simply stating what the book says.
They knew they had to keep the law of Moses and they did. But they also
knew and looked forward to the coming of Christ. Again, try reading the
book.
> >Which, I strongly suspect, was absorbed in toto from some critic's book.
> >The Tanners maybe?
>
> My, we are getting testy. No, actually, I tend to avoid statements
> that aren't substantiated and I do a lot of my own research. Where
> the Tanners show substantiated documentation, especially from
> authenticated LDS publications, I take some notice.
Do you also take notice of where they deliberately ignore the facts that
don't substantiate their distorted view of things? Or the way they use ...
to skip over the context of a quote and make it appear that the person
being quoted said the opposite of what they actually did?
> >Really? But what does the book itself say? Let's read it:
>
> >IINephi 26
> >33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that
which
> >is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain
> >unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and
> >partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black
and
> >white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen;
and
> >all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
>
> You chose, of course, to avoid the problems of 2 Nephi 30:6. Now I'm
> well aware that "white and delightsome people" has been changed to
> read "pure and delightsome people". But not in the earliest editions
> which Smith had a hand in and certainly not in the original manuscript
> which came divinely worded.
Have a hard time with symbolism do you? I don't suppose you're aware that
Nephi used "white" in the context of "pure", hmmm?
> But more specific to the issue is 2 Nephi 5:24, where blackness of
> skin was a sign of God's curse. Now I realize that later in the book
> there is a request to no longer regard their skin. But this is
> conditional upon their abandoning the practices which cursed them.
Symbolism, symbolism.
> Now my point was originally to say that the people eventually devolved
> into what we now know as the Central and certain Northern Indians.
Whoa! According to what provable evidence? Sure, many _think_ that those
Indians are the descendants of the Lamanites, but until you can provide
proof, nothing else you say here has any substantiation. There is no
certain evidence of your assertion above. Until you can do so, you have no
footing.
> Have they practiced the faith and traditions of the Nephites? Have
> they not exhibited in all their known history practices which would
> never have been approved by the Nephites.
Here we will indulge you for just a moment, just to show how patently
absurd you're making things. Assuming for the moment that those Indians are
indeed the descendants of the Lamanites, why would anyone expect them to
have practices of which the _Nephites_ approved? The Nephites were the
righteous branch of the people who eventually fell into sin and were
destroyed. They left _no_ descendants! So, the Indians would be descendants
of the _Lamanites_ who never believed in, nor practiced the faith of the
Nephites. So why would they have practices of which the Nephites would
approve? It just wouldn't be - your suppositions are based on a faulty
premise and lead to a faulty conclusion.
> >> >> Add to this the rather numerous LDS historical blunders which have
> >> >> frequently demonstrated their rather loose grasp of careful
> >> >> scholarship
>
> >You'll have to provide direct references in context to prove such a
point.
>
> For starters, here's one that shows problems in keeping their own
> history consistent. Doctrine and Covenants 5:26, Martin Harris
> affirms that the plates were shown to the witnesses "by the Power of
> God".
Bzzzt! Wrong! You've been reading too much of the Tanners again! Here's the
context of chapter 5 of the D&C (notice that this revelation speaks _about_
Martin Harris and his desire for a witness; it is _not_ an affirmation by
Harris of how the plates were shown to the witnesses!)
5:23 And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the
man that desires the witness--
5:24 Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself
sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble
himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity unto him a view of the
things which he desires to see.
5:25 And then he shall say unto the generation: Behold, I have seen the
things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a
surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown
unto me by the power of God and not of man.
5:26 And I the Lord command him, my servant Martin Harris, that he shall
say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have
seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God; and these
are the words which he shall say.
Notice also, that at this time, Harris has _not_ seen the plates. Your
agument is nothing but a bunch of holes.
> Also, Harris prevaricated some five years later in Anthon's office
> about whether he'd seen the plates. First he states he saw them.
> Then, when pressed, he admits that he only saw them with the "eye of
> faith".
According to your interpretation, of course. Harris maintained for the rest
of his life that he'd seen the plates and the angel that showed them to him
and the others. Sometimes he'd say with his eyes, sometimes the eye of
faith, but in the context of every statement it was always clear that he
meant exactly the same thing.
> Second, it is said that John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic
> priesthood on Smith. Last I recall, it's sorta impossible for
> someone who is not of the house of Levi to bestow the Levitical
> priesthood on anyone. Of course, if you're just making things up as
> you go along, details aren't important.
You'll have to prove that John didn't hold the priesthood. Why would John
be baptising if he didn't hold the priesthood. as you claim? And why would
Christ go to him instead of someone else for baptism unless John had
specific authority?
> Third, the term "reformed Egyptian" is a veritable conundrum. When
> the term is used anywhere else in linguistics, it means that a
> language is written in the characters of another language.
Not necessarily. All it means is that the language has been altered in some
way, and there are modern evidences of this taking place. I refer you to my
good friend Kerry Shirts for a thorough denunciated.
> Fourth, the LDs have repeatedly stated that there is ample evidence
> pointed to the events in the Book of Mormon in the New World. The
> Hill of Cumorah is stated to be the scene of the greatest proposed
> battle in the history of North America, involving half a million men.
> Yet not one piece of archaelogical evidence has ever been found to
> substantiate that anything more than the grazing of bovines happened
> there.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Undoubtedly, you would desire a
great more than archaeology can provide. Heck, they only just recently
found evidence of one of the cities in the Bible (Jericho? my memory's not
real strong on this one) even though they knew where it was supposed to be.
You're wanting evidence for something that is far less concrete (simply a
big battle), that likely left nothing more than decayed bones, and in an
area that is only speculated at. Nice, but quite a fantasy.
> Even John Sorenson, your Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at
> BYU and highly published, admits this and more, "After nearly 150
> years . . we Mormons have been unable confidently to pin down the
> location of a single city, identify even one route they traversed . .
> in their American promised land." Dr. Christensen at BYU adds to
> this, "In the first place, the statement that the Book of Mormon has
> already been proved by archaeology is misleading." . . "That such an
> idea could exist indicates the ignorance of many of our people with
> regard to what is going on in the historical and anthropological
> sciences. "
Yup. There's little archaeological proof - SO FAR. But then, the surface
has hardly been scratched in uncovering all the history of the area.
Further, it indicates ignorance of those who would claim that it proves
anything _against_ us either!
> I've saved the best for last. In 1959, a member of the Council of the
> Seventy described Quezalcoatl as none other than Jesus Christ himself.
This was your best? Laugh!!!!! Well, you've certainly blasted our religion
to pieces with this one - LOL! All you've shown is that the Seventy's
opinion was wrong. Congratulations.
> >I have. You however simply don't want to see them. I suggest you read
the
> >rebuttals to the polemics you have immersed yourself in.
> >(http://www.farmsresearch.com is a good place to start). Try actually
> >_reading_ the Book of Mormon if you want to make a point about it.
>
> Condescension doesn't go well with your tie. I know it looks good in
> print, but it's always a good idea to have your facts in place first.
You should know - you've practiced it better than I have.
> >> If considerable aspects of Mormon doctrine aren't credible, pointing
> >> to Mormon good works or their sincere care for family and brethren
> >> can't offset it.
>
> >_All_ of the doctrine is absolutely credible. You haven't demonstrated
> >_anything_ regarding the doctrine per se.
>
> Awww, sure I have. Do we have to go over this again? I've been
> discussing two major points: 1) the credibility of the Joseph Smith
> First Vision, especially the bit about all other churches being wrong
> and their creeds being an abomination
Of which the only thing you've demonstrated is that you don't agree with
it. That was a given from the beginning. You've _proven_ absolutely
nothing.
> 2) the belief by all LDS that
> the Book of Mormon is equal to Scripture. Unless you don't agree
> these are points of LDS doctrine?
Yes, and I affirm it. The BofM is indeed equal to scripture because that's
what it is. I know it. I testify of it.
> To state without support that
> Smith proclamations and BofM records are just "true" is
> self-fulfilling, which doesn't demonstrate anything.
Nor can you "prove" anything about the Bible being "true". Such things are
taken on faith. Sure, you can use all sorts of means to show that the
writings of the Bible existed, etc., but that doesn't prove anything about
truth. The truth is divined via the spirit, otherwise what is faith for.
Scripture is believed on faith. If you require proof for your faith, then
you have almost no faith at all.
> > All of your statements have been
> >side issues and tangentials. Again, show me that you have some credible
> >standing by proving to me that you've read the book and therefore can
make
> >commentary about it. Tell me about Korihor or Ether. Who are the sons of
> >Helaman? We'll start there and see how you do.
>
> As in Bible Trivia?
No, as in show that you have read the book.
> I'd rather stick with the areas which present
> credibility issues.
In other words, you haven't read the book, and you have no credibility to
comment on it. Everything you claim about the book is derived from
anti-Mormon literature, mostly the Tanners. Anyone who has read the BofM
would be able to tell who those characters are right off the bat. Thanks
for clearing up the fact that the only reading you've done in the BofM is
to read a few select verses which the anti's have shown you in their books.
You indeed lack credibility in this matter.
Craig
Craig Anderson
gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article
<N.052097....@rc-75.netonecom.net>...
> > All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
> > categorize them as Christian or not.
> > -----
>
beliefs
tree
> by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
That's because "Mormons" _are_ Christian. Our core beliefs may not
completely dovetail with that of the fundamentalist Christian, but the
beliefs definitely are Christian.
Craig
Craig Anderson
<snip>
> I thought your point was that there was precedence
> elsewhere which corroborated Smith's report of the messengers
> indictment.
No, that wasn't my point. I merely restated that Christ told Joseph that
the creeds of the various religions of the day were incorrect, nothing
more.
> > I don't understand your confusion. As for why He would condemn them, it
> >is perfectly logical in light of the fact that they were wrong, and they
> >led people to believe erroneously in an incorrect doctrine. The fact
that
> >they glorified His name is partly the reason that He said that "they
draw
> >near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me."
>
> Even if I should grant that the people were deserving of His censure
> (which I don't), how does this make the words of praise and glory
> (albeit falsly applied) abominations?
Who's saying anything about words of praise and glory? We're talking about
creeds, and creeds are statements of faith and doctrine. Faith and belief
by individuals is, in my opinion, _always_ welcomed by the Lord.
> >Such a concept doesn't mean the Bible is somehow inferior. We certainly
> >don't consider it to be such. . .
>
> Craig, you might want to re-read the Introduction to a modern printing
> of the BofM.
Ok, here it is for all to read. The _very first line_ of the introduction
says:
"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible."
Show me in that statement anything that could be construed to imply that we
consider the Bible to be inferior. Sheesh, how many times do we have to
say it to get the message across? WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE BIBLE TO BE
INFERIOR!
> >Sorry, no. Transaltion is also a problem because the text and its
meaning
> >get changed in various translations, not to mention whole additions to
> >scripture such as the Johanine Comma (many thanks to Marc Shindler on
this,
> >and I recommend you read his excellent treatment of the subject).
>
> You really need to read up on this subject, like the excellent
> reference "The New Testament Text" by Bruce Metzger (Oxford Press).
Perhaps I'll give this volume a read sometime. I notice that you neatly
sidestepped the article by Schindler.
> >> . . . Especially from a man who was unqualified to deal with it's
> >>translation or interpretation.
>
> >Unqualified according to you, of course. But then, you are not qualified
to
> >issue such a judgment either.
>
> I apply the qualifications recognized by competent, careful
> scholarship. He was not even remotely skilled in the original
> languages of the Bible and had no formal training in hermeneutics.
> But there are men who don't and do rather well with the Holy Spirit as
> their instructor.
Indeed. Joseph was one of them. 'nuff said.
> The true test
> of their qualifications, however, is whether their interpretations
> stack up against the revelation of God already faithfully given.
And the Book of Mormon holds its own quite nicely in this regard, whether
you personally think so or not.
> And of course, here is precisely where the rub is. The passages in
> the Bible which contradict Smith just happen to be the passages which
> he proclaims are corrupt.
Except that there are no contradictions, particularly when the context and
history are examined fully. You struck out here.
> Like I said and demonstrate later (PART B), you know as well as I do
> that he did more than correct punctuation.
Excuse me, but I didn't say that Joseph corrected punctuation. I said he
made some changes to make the text clearer.
> Besides, you admit below
> that it really wouldn't matter anyway, because it was Joseph and that
> stops the mouths of all who might complain.
But I've no doubt that you and many others would scream and holler if it
was anyone _other_ than the prophet who made the corrections. If any should
be made, who would you prefer to have do it if not the prophet and
translator? Your stance makes no sense.
<snip>
> The
> dissention is over what the text means not what it says.
No, it's over both.
> >> Actually my point in this thread was to question the validity of
> >> simply testing the fruits of Mormonism as sufficient to accept them as
> >> Christians. A discussion which undermines the textual foundation for
> >> the BoM, which is revered by them as equivalent to Scripture, goes to
> >> that point.
>
> >Hardly. Or need I remind you that faith is not based on "textual
> >foundation"? Is your faith based on so shallow a thing as that?
>
> I wouldn't call the New Testament a shallow thing if I were you.
Boy, did you miss that one! I said absolutely nothing about the NT being a
"shallow thing." If you would read more clearly I simply asked if your
faith is based on "textual foundation." Let me rephrase it: is your faith
based on something so shallow as textual proofs?
> And what do you call the belief that the BofM is the most correct book
> ever written? The LDS has proclaimed it as a key foundation of your
> faith along with the testimony of Joseph Smith's First Vision, all of
> which are " texts". Is your faith not based on a textual foundation?
No, it's based on the confirming witness of the spirit. As for the BofM
being the most correct book, this is still correct. It doesn't make the
Bible inferior. It simply means that the BofM has not been through the
countless translations, changes, additions, etc. that the Bible has. If the
books of the Bible had been preserved absolutely intact as they were
originally written, we would make the same claim for it. (Again, did you
bother to check out Schindler's article?)
> Since LDS uniquely identifies the people of Mormonism and their church
> organization, and Mormonism more readily identifies the doctrine and
> system of belief, I'd have difficulty trying to make the other fit.
The point you miss is that we are not the only organization to which the
term "Mormon" has been applied. LDS identifies us uniquely. Therefore, it
is the more appropriate term.
> I can try to use LDS doctrine, but I'm bound to slip.
Not a problem, we're a all human. <g>
> Ahmmmm. You did a rather good job of missing the point here. You
> were defending Smith's bad grammar and usage on the basis that this is
> how most everyone in his time spoke anyway. My response was that if
> they were so poor in the king's English, how did they manage with
> something far more sophisticated? Since, you've conceded that it was
> considered more "elegant than the common tongue", it seems this would
> make King James English a far better candidate than the deplorable
> usage of Smith. After all, it was good enough to remain in use for
> two centuries and was something folks in Smith's time were already
> quite used to.
You are arguing quite the opposite of what most people argue. The vast
majority of critics of the church complain because the BofM was written in
a King James style of English. You claim that it would be better if it were
written that way instead of in Joseph's style of grammar? I think you need
to read the book - you're way off base here.
Craig
John
E. L. Hamm <midn...@bronze.coil.com> wrote in article
<5mip88$5rp$1...@ns.concourse.com>...
> Chris Lambert <ch...@lambert-bas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A Christian is someone who believes what it says in the Bible and
> >nothing else. A mormon can not be a #Christian because they have added
> >to the word of God.
> >Chris Lambert
Out of curiosity, how would you know they added to the word of God? Maybe
your religion took away from it.
Randy Ostler
E. L. Hamm wrote:
>
> Chris Lambert <ch...@lambert-bas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A Christian is someone who believes what it says in the Bible and
> >nothing else. A mormon can not be a #Christian because they have added
> >to the word of God.
> >Chris Lambert
>
> raised in stated that a true Christian is one who is Christ-like. And if
> you read your Bible, you would also find that Christ said to go with the
> spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. According to your
> definition of Christian, Chris, then they would be going against that very
> concept. :)
Just to add to E.L. - (because Chris' comment was gone already)
We have a little logic fallacy here:
1) "a Christian is someone who believe what it says in the Bible and
nothing else"
2) The Bible does not define a Christian as someone who believes the
Bible and nothing else.
ergo
Statement #1 is false!
Considering Paul's description of the foundation of the church of Christ
as being based on apostles and prophets (special witnesses of Christ,
and Spokesman for God in case the definition of these terms is not
obvious).
One more logic problem:
1) The scriptures are complete
If we define scriptures as generally to be teh dealings of God with his
people, combined with the revelations of God's will to his servants the
prophets then:
2) There is no more revelation, prophecy, or prophets
which is not consistent with Paul's description of the gifts of the
Spirit or description of the foundation of the Church of Christ. (1 Cor
12:10 Eph 2:19-20)
Then if we look at Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he
revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."
Therefore the result is:
3) If 1 and 2 are true, then the Lord God is not doing anything.
One might say there is no requirement to have prophets write down their
revelations, but then why would past revelations be more valuable than
current? Historically, apostate Israel had a very big problem stoning
the living prophets while venerating those their ancestors had put to
death.
Randy
Randy Ostler
Craig Anderson wrote:
>
> gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article
> <N.052097....@rc-75.netonecom.net>...
> > > All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
> > > categorize them as Christian or not.
> > > -----
> >
> beliefs
> > are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know the
> tree
> > by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
>
> That's because "Mormons" _are_ Christian. Our core beliefs may not
> completely dovetail with that of the fundamentalist Christian, but the
> beliefs definitely are Christian.
>
> Craig
Let me simplify this a little more:
Mormon's are Christian.
Mormon's are not Catholics. Mormon's are not Protestants.
Here's a simple test so that you don't have to go around offending
people. Make the statement to a Muslim that Muslims aren't Christian.
If you say it in a non-threatening tone of voice, the answer most likely
will be "yeah, so what's new." Make the comment to a Catholic that they
are not Christian (my born again friends have declassified them as
Christians) and no matter how politely you make that point, you are
likely to give offense. It is the same with Mormons. Making the
comment that Mormon's aren't Christians is likely to grarnish a look
"Are you a religious bigot or simply completely misinformed?"
I'm on a role with Logic problems today so here's one more:
1) A Christian is someone who has accepted Christ and been Born again
(had their nature changed to desire to follow Christ's example)
2) Being Born again is a personal spiritual experience that is
understood between an individual and God. Others may recognize this by
their fruits, but even Job's and Christ's fruits were misconstrued to be
the by product of evil, so really Christ and the individual are the only
true judge of the acceptance of Christ in someone's life.
3) If a third person can not judge whether someone has been born again
or not, then for someone to say Mormon's are not Christians -- is not
based on any knowledge, but is simply a comment of prejudice and
bigotry.
The retreat of protestant Christianity behind the "Jericho Wall" of
"Mormon's arent' Christians" will only make the collapse of that wall
more devastating to those who rely on it for the protection of their
livelihood. Unfortunately they commit a lot of innocent people to guard
that wall also unwittingly. That is the saddest part of the whole
"Mormon's aren't Christians" marketing campaign.
Randy
Billy Wilson
John wrote:
>
> E. L. Hamm <midn...@bronze.coil.com> wrote in article
> <5mip88$5rp$1...@ns.concourse.com>...
> > Chris Lambert <ch...@lambert-bas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >nothing else. A mormon can not be a #Christian because they have added
> > >to the word of God.
> > >Chris Lambert
Obviously they added to it because....
as it is printed on the title page of the FIRST EDITION of
The Book Of Mormon
BY JOSEPH SMITH, JR
AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR
Steve Monson
Billy Wilson <wfw...@netside.com> wrote:
>> > Chris Lambert <ch...@lambert-bas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > >A Christian is someone who believes what it says in the Bible and
>> > >nothing else. A mormon can not be a #Christian because they have added
>> > >to the word of God.
>> > >Chris Lambert
:Obviously they [the Mormons] added to it because....
:
:as it is printed on the title page of the FIRST EDITION of
:
:The Book Of Mormon
:
:BY JOSEPH SMITH, JR
:
:AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR
As has been explained, copyright laws required such a statement. Imagine
trying to claim a copyright for Mormon, who had been dead almost 1400
years. Since Joseph dictated it, he was justified in claiming the copyright,
as the author and proprietor.
This sort of grasping at straws is what makes the antis' antics so
entertaining!
Steve Monson
--
A skeleton goes to the movies.
He walks over to the concession stand and says,
"I'll have a large popcorn. And a Dust Buster."
wilt
sl...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> Joseph Smith "wrote" the material from the so-called tablets in King
> James English, but in the mid 1800s. Duh-eee. Jesus is much smarter
> than that, but apparently millions of LDS cult members are not.
Hmmm. . . Somehow the comment above causes me to think of that old
adage - some folks minds are like concrete. All mixed up and permanently
set.
Now, if you *would* like to discuss the language of the Book of Mormon,
fine --
wilt
> -- Slye
sl...@geocities.com
Mormons are not Christians. The doctrine of the LDS church denies the
deity of Jesus -- and that in itself is a red-flag marker of a cult.
On 30 May 1997 17:30:57 GMT, "Craig Anderson"
<10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article
><N.052097....@rc-75.netonecom.net>...
>> > All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
>> > categorize them as Christian or not.
>> > -----
>>
>> Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their core
>beliefs
>> are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know the
>tree
>> by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
>
>That's because "Mormons" _are_ Christian. Our core beliefs may not
>completely dovetail with that of the fundamentalist Christian, but the
>beliefs definitely are Christian.
>
>Craig
-- Slye
sl...@geocities.com
Joseph Smith "wrote" the material from the so-called tablets in King
James English, but in the mid 1800s. Duh-eee. Jesus is much smarter
than that, but apparently millions of LDS cult members are not.
On 30 May 1997 17:12:22 GMT, "Craig Anderson"
<10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
-- Slye
Bill Braun
Found a very interesting new book:
"How Wide The Divide?: A Mormon and an Evangelical In Conversation"
Writen by:
Dr. Craig Blomberg, Denver Theological Seminary
Dr. Stephen Robinson, Brigham Young University
Both have doctorates in New Testament from non-LDS universities.
The authors seek to clear up some of the many misconceptions these two
groups have about each other's beliefs.
Kevin Kelley
Well, obviously, Craig-the-omniscient, if the BofM introduces different
policies, or for that matter, the D of C or P of GP, that changes the
meaning of the Bible, then you've relegated the Bible to a lesser
position of importance. However, if if, your so-called holy texts add
to and clarify what is reveled in the Bible, then your 'texts' are a
good thing.
They're not.
And the LDS church is making big bucks from their business...
--
Kevin F. Kelley
------
mailto:KKe...@Europa.Com
KKe...@Standard.Com
Http://www.europa.com/~kkelley
Kevin Kelley
Yeah, well, the bulk of Christians would argue -that- point. Sorry,
Craig, it's more like the putz who suddenly decides he's a member of the
Elks. The Elks disagree.
Ya ignoramous.
Craig Anderson wrote:
>
> gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article
> <N.052097....@rc-75.netonecom.net>...
> > > All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
> > > categorize them as Christian or not.
> > > -----
> >
> > Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their core
> beliefs
> > are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know the
> tree
> > by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
>
> That's because "Mormons" _are_ Christian. Our core beliefs may not
> completely dovetail with that of the fundamentalist Christian, but the
> beliefs definitely are Christian.
>
> Craig
--
Kevin F. Kelley
------
mailto:KKe...@Europa.Com
KKe...@Standard.Com
KKe...@null.net
DrGr...@Freemail.nl
Http://www.europa.com/~kkelley
an
Craig Anderson wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> That's because "Mormons" _are_ Christian. Our core beliefs may not
> completely dovetail with that of the fundamentalist Christian, but the
> beliefs definitely are Christian.
>
> Craig
Craig, as a Mormon can you fill me in on what I'm missing as a Christian
raised in an Episcopal church, and now worshipping at a church of the
Christian and Missionary Alliance?
To sum up my beliefs, taken from the Apostles' Creed, I believe in God,
the Father Almighty, Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, and the Holy
Spirit. I believe that Christ will come again, I believe in the
confession of and forgiveness of sins through His name, and in
everlasting life.
What do Mormon's believe? And what am I doing wrong?
Andrea S.
Joe Steve Swick III
___...@geocities.com___
Mormons are not Christians. The doctrine of the LDS church denies the
deity of Jesus -- and that in itself is a red-flag marker of a cult.
On this point, you are mistaken. According to Mormon theology, Jesus IS
God; God the Son. Mormons do NOT deny Jesus' deity, although they reject
creedal definitions of HOW Jesus is God. -- JSW
+++ +++++ +++++++
VISIT the final resting place of all good Illuminati/ Alien/ Cthulhu/
Mormon/ Freemason/ K of C/ World Domination conspiracies and rants!
Protection from the MOJO! FNORD http://www.teleport.com/~dkossy/
Joe Steve Swick III
___Kevin Kelley___
And the LDS church is making big bucks from their business...
Ah, but MORMONS belong to the ONE TRUE FRANCHISE... not a low-class
knockoff, that just costs as much. <G> And excuse me, Mr. Sour Grapes,
but I'm *glad* the Church is making money, since like it or not, the
Church must have funds in order to operate. I would rather it operate
well into the black, thankyouverymuch. And, as its funds go primarily to
its worldwide marketing efforts (we call this missionary work) and
various corporate training centers around the world (we call them
chapels and temples), --uses which I approve and applaud-- you won't
catch *me* in a gripe session about the fact that the Church is
financially healthy.
Warmest Regards,
Joe Steve Swick III
Joe Steve Swick III
___...@geocities.com___
Joseph Smith "wrote" the material from the so-called tablets in King
James English, but in the mid 1800s. Duh-eee. Jesus is much smarter
than that, but apparently millions of LDS cult members are not.
Well, SLAP ME STUPID. And all this while, I thought it was only the
AUTHORS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT that were dumb enough to quote from
Greek-language versions of the Hebrew scriptures, errors and all, and
even put those words into the mouth of Jesus.
You would think that someone who could figure this out about the NT
might have at least SUSPECTED something of a similar nature might be up
with the Book of Mormon, but I GUESS WE ALL JUST MISSED THE KING JAMES
STUFF IN THE BOOK. HOW COULD WE BE SO UNBELIEVABLY DUMB.
Joe Steve Swick III
___Michael R. Hagerty___
But, for the moment, I'll concede that "great deal" doesn't refer to
quantity. It does, however, refere to quality and significance. Do
you consider the following innocuous changes?
1 Nephi 13:40 changes from ". . that the Lamb of God is the Eternal
Father and Savior of the world" to ". . . Eternal Son of the Father
and Savior of the world."
If I remember correctly, this change occurred as a result of a the
change in 1 Ne. 11:21. The change was recommended by Parley P. Pratt,
not as a change in Mormon doctrine, but to clarify a point that could be
misread by those for whom the words "Mother of God" hold a different
meaning. In both cases the change was from the idea that the Lamb of God
was the Eternal Father, to the Lamb of God was the Son of the Eternal
Father, and not as you have stated it. For me, either wording is
acceptable.
___Michael R. Hagerty___
You intend to propose that being mistaken about whether the Lamb of
God is the Eternal Father or His Son is a trivial point of punctuation
or grammar?
-----
No, I am saying that in this case, it makes no real difference, given
the Book of Mormon's very clear teaching on Jesus as the Father and the
Son. <G>
___Michael R. Hagerty___
1 Nephi 13:32 changes from ". . state of awful woundedness . ." to
". . state of awful blindedness . ."
-----
Here the printed text did not match the original manuscript, which in
places was difficult to read. The cursive word "blindedness" appearing
in the printer's manuscript was substituted for "woundedness" by the
printer. The current version restores the original.
___Michael R. Hagerty___
Mosiah 27:29 changes from ". . wrecked with eternal torment . ." to
". . racked with eternal torment . ."
-----
Rember that the text of the Book of Mormon was DICTATED, and sometimes
homophones like this crept in to the text. Another such example would be
3 Nephi 25:2, where the words "Son of Righteousness" appear in stead of
the homophone SUN of Righteousness."
___Michael R. Hagerty___
Is it OK that the divine agency which effected the stones
was confused about whether it was Benjamin or Mosiah, especially when
it was made clear in chapters 6 and 7 that Benjamin was already dead?
-----
I would suggest to you that the error may have been a part of the
original record. As Mormons do not share the Protestant view of
scriptural inerrancy, this is really of no consequence at all. I would
also point out that critics have pointed out this precise kind of error
in the Bible (e.g., who was the first person to see the risen Lord?), so
I would be careful about getting your shorts all in a bunch over such
minor details.
I would be interestedm Michael, if you could show me a passage in all of
the 4000 or so changes, that either itself changes, or indicates a
change in Mormon doctrine? I can only think of one or two that could
even be construed this way. I would be quite interested to see what you
might have found aside from what you have listed in this post.
Warmest Regards,
Joe Steve Swick III
Michael R. Hagerty
Joe Steve Swick III <jsw...@cris.com> wrote:
>___Michael R. Hagerty___
>But, for the moment, I'll concede that "great deal" doesn't refer to
>quantity. It does, however, refere to quality and significance. Do
>you consider the following innocuous changes?
>
>1 Nephi 13:40 changes from ". . that the Lamb of God is the Eternal
>Father and Savior of the world" to ". . . Eternal Son of the Father
>and Savior of the world."
>-----
>If I remember correctly, this change occurred as a result of a the
>change in 1 Ne. 11:21. The change was recommended by Parley P. Pratt,
>not as a change in Mormon doctrine, but to clarify a point that could be
>misread by those for whom the words "Mother of God" hold a different
>meaning. . .
My point was that ANY change of this kind would constistute a
violation of the principles operating when Smith was actually
translating. Smith was not allowed to reword things even for reasons
he may have deemed necessary (Catholic errors included). If Smith
couldn't even get away with it, Parley Pratt sure shouldn't have.
>___Michael R. Hagerty___
>You intend to propose that being mistaken about whether the Lamb of
>God is the Eternal Father or His Son is a trivial point of punctuation
>or grammar?
>-----
>No, I am saying that in this case, it makes no real difference, given
>the Book of Mormon's very clear teaching on Jesus as the Father and the
>Son. <G>
Fine. But Mr. Anderson needs to admit that it wasn't just punctuation
and spelling. And this doesn't resolve the discontinuity that these
statements have with the NT. Jesus is NOT the Father in the NT.
Equality with God is not the same as identity with each member of the
Triune Godhead.
>___Michael R. Hagerty___
>1 Nephi 13:32 changes from ". . state of awful woundedness . ." to
>". . state of awful blindedness . ."
>-----
>Here the printed text did not match the original manuscript, which in
>places was difficult to read. The cursive word "blindedness" appearing
>in the printer's manuscript was substituted for "woundedness" by the
>printer. The current version restores the original.
Fair enough. But this doesn't explain why Smith didn't catch this
himself when he reviewed the finals or for years thereafter. After
all who else knew his handwriting better than he himself?
>___Michael R. Hagerty___
>Mosiah 27:29 changes from ". . wrecked with eternal torment . ." to
> ". . racked with eternal torment . ."
>-----
>Rember that the text of the Book of Mormon was DICTATED, and sometimes
>homophones like this crept in to the text. Another such example would be
>3 Nephi 25:2, where the words "Son of Righteousness" appear in stead of
>the homophone SUN of Righteousness."
Okay. A fair reply.
>___Michael R. Hagerty___
>Is it OK that the divine agency which effected the stones
>was confused about whether it was Benjamin or Mosiah, especially when
>it was made clear in chapters 6 and 7 that Benjamin was already dead?
>-----
>I would suggest to you that the error may have been a part of the
>original record. As Mormons do not share the Protestant view of
>scriptural inerrancy, this is really of no consequence at all.
Mormons don't claim Scriptural inerrancy, eh? What do you call the
statement, "the most correct book ever written" or all the statements
by the present and past prophets that the BofM is the truth and the
Word of God? Just not some passages? Here a truth, there a mistake?
All this would be fine for Mormonism if it weren't for one little
detail. The New Testament wasn't being dictated to the its
translators through seer stones. Even if the original plates of the
BofM were incorrect in places, the divine agency employed in
tranlating them for Smith would surely have not passed on error,
especially human error. Especially getting a king's name wrong.
Nice try but it doesn't wash.
>I would
>also point out that critics have pointed out this precise kind of error
>in the Bible (e.g., who was the first person to see the risen Lord?), so
>I would be careful about getting your shorts all in a bunch over such
>minor details.
First, discrepancies in the OT are not due to the original writer
being mistaken. Almost all can be attributed to errors of
transmission. Textual criticism can spot them by virtue of a wealth
of manuscript witnesses from which they can derive valid, defensible
corrections. There is no such inventory for the BofM.
The NT nowhere states who was the first person to arrive at the tomb
of all those who came that day. It states who was the first to arrive
in a particular group, and there more than one.
Besides, accounts which differ about the minor details of a major
event which involved many other associated events is not quite the
same as claiming an act for a king whom everyone knows is dead.
You really think these are equally minor categories of discrepancy?
>I would be interestedm Michael, if you could show me a passage in all of
>the 4000 or so changes, that either itself changes, or indicates a
>change in Mormon doctrine? I can only think of one or two that could
>even be construed this way. I would be quite interested to see what you
>might have found aside from what you have listed in this post.
Didn't claim that some changes made significant alterations to Mormon
doctrine. I said that the changes were not just punctuation and
spelling but also affected the quality and significance of the
*content*. Getting a king's name wrong is more than punctuation and
spelling.
To example my point, the addition of "Yea, decreeth unto them decrees
which are unalterable," in Alma 29:4, isn't a case of clarification or
spelling or punctuation. Adding a phrase that wasn't even in the
earliest edition affects content.
Now you can claim that the phrase isn't pivotal but how do you account
for it never appearing on the stones? And who after Smith would have
had the special means to know it needed to be added? If you say that
it was later received by divine inspiration, then why all the fuss
about making sure the correct words and ALL the words were copied to
the manuscript before more appeared?
Mike
Michael R. Hagerty
"Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
><5mll9k$n...@news.azstarnet.com>...
>> Even if I should grant that the people were deserving of His censure
>> (which I don't), how does this make the words of praise and glory
>> (albeit falsly applied) abominations?
>Who's saying anything about words of praise and glory? We're talking about
>creeds, and creeds are statements of faith and doctrine. Faith and belief
>by individuals is, in my opinion, _always_ welcomed by the Lord.
So of which are the words fo the Apostle's Creed and the Westminster
Confession? Faith and doctrine or faith and belief (as if this really
makes a profound difference)?
>> Craig, you might want to re-read the Introduction to a modern printing
>> of the BofM.
>Ok, here it is for all to read. The _very first line_ of the introduction
>says:
>"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible."
>Show me in that statement anything that could be construed to imply that we
>consider the Bible to be inferior. Sheesh, how many times do we have to
>say it to get the message across? WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE BIBLE TO BE
>INFERIOR!
Then don't contradict this by also affirming the OTHER statements in
the introduction you failed to comment on. When one says that a book
is "the most correct book" and then adds to this the qualification
"than any other book", you are making all other books inferior. Does
this logic escape you? You can shout the contrary all you want. That
doesn't make the contradiction go away.
If you mean to say that the BofM is the most correct book of any book
ever written but you don't mean to include the Bible in the list of
other books of which it is more correct, then why doesn't the LDS
simply say so in clarifying commentary on the Smith passage?
And please, telling the world that you DO say this by affirming the
use of the Bible "in so far as it is correctly translated" doesn't
unequivocally fix the problem. If by "correctly translated" you mean
an appeal to the independent textual scholarship which has for decades
scrutinized the biblical text, then there's no problem of
inferiority. But if the test of it being correctly translated are
the judgements of Smith or the statements of the BofM, you haven't
moved one iota toward extricating yourself from the claim of
inferiority for the Bible.
>> I apply the qualifications recognized by competent, careful
>> scholarship. He was not even remotely skilled in the original
>> languages of the Bible and had no formal training in hermeneutics.
>> But there are men who don't and do rather well with the Holy Spirit as
>> their instructor.
>Indeed. Joseph was one of them. 'nuff said.
I must not have made myself acidly clear. The men who don't have
formal educations but do well from instruction by the Holy Spirit earn
that accolade by the conformity of what they teach to what competent
scholarship also teaches. The mark of the Holy Spirit's work on men
is in the basic consistency among them. Where dissention and
scholarly disagreements play, it is obvious that the Holy Spirit has
not been allowed to operate equally on both sides.
You may think Smith was a man taught well by the Holy Spirit, but he
has not earned the respect of men who have also been guided by the
Holy Spirit and have derived rather different conclusions about
things.
>> The true test
>> of their qualifications, however, is whether their interpretations
>> stack up against the revelation of God already faithfully given.
>And the Book of Mormon holds its own quite nicely in this regard, whether
>you personally think so or not.
And of course, I can't agree. The case of Jeremiah's prophecy is one.
Lehi's understanding of the commandment of God is wholly contradictory
to Jeremiah's. I wouldn't call that holding up "quite nicely".
I can name many other cases.
>> And of course, here is precisely where the rub is. The passages in
>> the Bible which contradict Smith just happen to be the passages which
>> he proclaims are corrupt.
>Except that there are no contradictions, particularly when the context and
>history are examined fully. You struck out here.
Since I didn't present any specific cases, you have no way of knowing
whether I "struck out" or not. You're just making contrary statements
which don't prove anything.
>> Like I said and demonstrate later (PART B), you know as well as I do
>> that he did more than correct punctuation.
>Excuse me, but I didn't say that Joseph corrected punctuation. I said he
>made some changes to make the text clearer.
You must not check your previous posts very carefully. Here are your
exact words:
>>>Adding punctuation distresses you? That's pretty much all it was, of
>>>course. Joseph changed a couple other places to make the text plainer, but
>>>since he (Joseph) was the one to do it, then there's not argument to be had
>>>here.
Unless you aren't speaking the same English I am, it sounds to me and
any innocent bystander that your claiming Smith added punctuation.
Are those your words or not? You state that he "changed a couple of
other places. . " This grammatically ties the subject of that
sentence to the subject in the preceding one. ( I should charge your
former English teachers for having to explain this to you.)
This truly amazes me. Another LDS'er I'm chatting with does exactly
the same thing. You both claim unequivocally that you never said such
and such, or that Joseph Smith or the LDS never said such and such.
Then when I produce the statements in print, you both just respond
with "OK, so what?" or something equally evading. Do you all go away
to school to learn this technique? I run into this all the time.
>> Besides, you admit below
>> that it really wouldn't matter anyway, because it was Joseph and that
>> stops the mouths of all who might complain.
>But I've no doubt that you and many others would scream and holler if it
>was anyone _other_ than the prophet who made the corrections. If any should
>be made, who would you prefer to have do it if not the prophet and
>translator? Your stance makes no sense.
Doesn't wash when compared to the Smith's own account that the exact
words had to be correct before another sentence was shown on the
stones. Under these circumstances, there'd be no need for ANY
correction, even Smith's.
Care to comment?
><snip>
>> The
>> dissention is over what the text means not what it says.
>No, it's over both.
Then why only emphasize that it's a matter of translation?
I brought the subject of interpretation up a few posts ago and you
flatly rejected intepretation as an issue. It was all about
translation according to you. Want me to reprint this quote of yours
also?
>> I wouldn't call the New Testament a shallow thing if I were you.
>Boy, did you miss that one! I said absolutely nothing about the NT being a
>"shallow thing." If you would read more clearly I simply asked if your
>faith is based on "textual foundation." Let me rephrase it: is your faith
>based on something so shallow as textual proofs?
Something tells me you don't understand what certain words mean. The
New Testament is a document. It's statements therefore exist as a
text. If the verbal elements which comprise a statement of faith come
from the NT then they have a textual foundation. There's no question
I believe that the "text" originated in the mind of God, but since you
or I don't have a direct phone line to God, we're in the position of
having to refer to his written word, i.e., the text. Ergo, proofs
involving Scripture are TEXTUAL PROOFS by their very nature. You wish
to deny this?
And, YES, my faith is based on the statements and promises of God in
His written Word. If these are not a reliable foundation, we are all
quite miserably lost.
>> And what do you call the belief that the BofM is the most correct book
>> ever written? The LDS has proclaimed it as a key foundation of your
>> faith along with the testimony of Joseph Smith's First Vision, all of
>> which are " texts". Is your faith not based on a textual foundation?
>No, it's based on the confirming witness of the spirit.
So if I say that my opposite belief is based on the confirming witness
of the Spirit, you won't argue? You and I will never be able to
settle whose faith is REALLY based on the witness of the Spirit by
simply asserting it. Marshalling a host of the LDS who agree with
your claim won't do either. I can gather more than you can. So it's
not about what we assert and it's not about who has the greater
numbers standing behind him.
It's about God's written, objective Word. It eliminates all
subjective claims that the Holy Spirit endorses what someone is
saying. Even Jeremiah had this problem. The Lord stated through him
that there are many who stand up and say, "Thus saith the Lord; but I
have not sent them." How do you think people told the difference? By
checking for all the right buzz words? Or that he shook his voice in
an especially holy way? "Gosh, he sounds holy. Must be he's got the
truth!"
If anyone has the Holy Spirit, it will agree with what the Spirit has
ALREADY revealed. And that revelation is in the Bible as you have
already made quite clear above. What we're discussing now is whether
it is also in the BofM.
>As for the BofM
>being the most correct book, this is still correct. It doesn't make the
>Bible inferior. It simply means that the BofM has not been through the
>countless translations, changes, additions, etc. that the Bible has. If the
>books of the Bible had been preserved absolutely intact as they were
>originally written, we would make the same claim for it. (Again, did you
>bother to check out Schindler's article?)
And the point I suppose is that the BofM has been preserved absolutely
intact. You must have forgotten that you couldn't demonstrate this
anymore than you could fly to the moon. You have to have the primary
source material and its translation side by side to make this kind of
evaluation. Last I checked, that's sort of out of the question.
It's been a translation right from the start. Hence, no means of
verifying the correctness of its translation either inside the LDS or
by independent research. And, sorry, but Smith saying so is not a
validation. After all, he's the amanuensis. He can't independently
validate what he himself claims to be true. He could have shown
validation if he had produced evidence of the correlation between the
words on the plates and what he wrote. But that's the problem with
speaking ex-cathedra.
You claim the Bible has undergone countless translations. But at
least those translations can be compared to facsimiles of the primary
sources. And one doesn't need the Urim and Thummim to do it, either.
>> Since LDS uniquely identifies the people of Mormonism and their church
>> organization, and Mormonism more readily identifies the doctrine and
>> system of belief, I'd have difficulty trying to make the other fit.
>The point you miss is that we are not the only organization to which the
>term "Mormon" has been applied. LDS identifies us uniquely. Therefore, it
>is the more appropriate term.
For you as a people, OK. For your system of doctrine, it's
cumbersome.
>> I can try to use LDS doctrine, but I'm bound to slip.
>Not a problem, we're a all human. <g>
>> Ahmmmm. You did a rather good job of missing the point here. You
>> were defending Smith's bad grammar and usage on the basis that this is
>> how most everyone in his time spoke anyway. My response was that if
>> they were so poor in the king's English, how did they manage with
>> something far more sophisticated? Since, you've conceded that it was
>> considered more "elegant than the common tongue", it seems this would
>> make King James English a far better candidate than the deplorable
>> usage of Smith. After all, it was good enough to remain in use for
>> two centuries and was something folks in Smith's time were already
>> quite used to.
>You are arguing quite the opposite of what most people argue. The vast
>majority of critics of the church complain because the BofM was written in
>a King James style of English. You claim that it would be better if it were
>written that way instead of in Joseph's style of grammar? I think you need
>to read the book - you're way off base here.
It's not the presence of King Jamesish statements that's the problem.
It's that the translation isn't consistently one style or the other.
It would be less of a problem if it were 100% KJV style.
The back and forth between the proper English of the KJV and Smith's
grammar and usage make it plain as the nose on anyone's face that
they're plagiarisms.
>Craig
Michael R. Hagerty
"Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
><5mllal$n...@news.azstarnet.com>...
>> PART B:
>>
>> "Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>This is a presumption entirely of your own making. You are assuming
>"embarassment" where none exists. Have you never heard of an author
>correcting glitches of the first edition?
Not when he claims that the very words were given in the manner Smith
lays out. You have to infer that the glitches were conveyed by holy
agency, and I'd be surprised if you admitted that.
>>
>> >As for tampering with
>> >it, who did so? Joseph made some corrections, but considering he was the
>> >prophet who translated it, that shouldn't upset any one? Or are you just
>> >pouting because someone put in punctuation and divided the book into
>> >chapters and verses?
>>
>> You are certainly free to minimize the mis-spellings and grammatical
>> errors, but such a rebuttal seems rather ludicrous when one simply
>> pictures the most rudimentary aspects of the translation process.
>Joseph dictated the entire book to scribes as he translated it. The
>mis-spellings and grammatical errors were introduced by those scribes, not
>Joseph. Since there wasn't even a definitive grammar at the time, this is
>hardly any sort of real criticism.
This doesn't jive with what Smith himself states. He says that the
words had to be written down as seen or the next phrase would not
appear. So it really doesn't matter if his pet monkey wrote them down
for him. They had to be correctly written not spoken, according to
Smith.
>> Smith openly admits that he was unable to translate the plates unaided
>> or by means of his own abilities. So it seems painfully obvious that
>> the translated results could not be ther result of Smith's linguistic
>> analysis or skill. The exact wording must have come from the
>> intermediate means - the seers stones and spectacles.
>Incorrect. The exact wording came from translation, which, as anybody who
>has ever translated something before knows, is never a word-for-word
>process.
'Scuse me? Smith STATES that the EXACT words came directly from the
stones. He didn't look 'em up in a lexicon or any other tool
routinely used by translators. You're trying to make the act of
translation apply to the act of transcription. And "as anybody who
has ever translated something before knows", there is a difference
between these operations.
You can't have it both ways. It can't be that the exact words had to
be written down before new ones appeared, but it was allowed that the
person writing them down could slip here and there.
>> In fact, in 1881 Joseph F. Smith said precisely this. He described
>> how the book was actually translated, ". . The Lord cuase each word
>> spelled as is it in the book to appear on the stones in short
>> sentences or words. . . . And if there was a word wrongly written or
>> even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there
>> . . and when corrected, the sentence would disappear as usual." This
>> is a quotation from the Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, residing at
>> the Utah State Historical Society.
>And I challenge this. Firstly, Joseph F. Smith was giving simply his own
>understanding - he never did any of the scribing.
Since D&C provides that the president of the church is prophet, seer
revelator and the Articles of Faith enjoin all to be subject to the
presidency, this is a strange attitude. It seems strange that a
president of the church, who knows full well how his words are going
to be taken, would comment on something as significant as how the
translation process actually occurred. I mean, he wasn't there so
he can't speak authoritatively from first hand knowledge. To just
give an opinion would mean that he was making up what he thought might
be the method, and that's certainly not something you would allow to
be published. Which leaves divine revelation. And according to the
LDS, he was in the right position to receive that.
>Secondly, the above
>description was originally stated by, hmmmm, Emma if I remember precisely.
So, again, why would he have repeated something in print that was not
substantiated or was only the word of Smith's wife, who later became
troublesome for the LDS? Either he had confidence in her testimony to
go out on a limb and print it, or he had separately confirmatory
revelation. But to print something unsubstantiated or from a source
he may have questioned is hard to buy.
>Thirdly, the letter-correct concept referred to _proper names only_, not
>every single word. Joseph would state a word, and the scribe would repeat
>it and write it, and then they would move on to the next one.
You'll have to substantiate this with a fuller quote of F. Smith's
statement. Mine doesn't mention any stipulation about proper names.
Besides, you're saying that the agent of revelation to Joseph was
super concerned about getting the proper name of Benjamin down
correctly but didn't seem to care that it was really Mosiah all along?
Or are you claiming the agent of revelation didn't know it was Mosiah?
>The scribe who worked with Joseph through the vast majority of the book was
>Oliver Cowdery and he left no description of the process at all. Joseph's
>description of the process was told by him this way: it was translated by
>the gift and power of God. That's all. Anything else is speculation and
>hazy recollection by those least knowledgable about the process.
So you're saying that a later president, prophet, seer and revelator
of the church put into print a description of a process he simply made
up from conjecture or from someone who's testimony he couldn't
substantiate?
>> This presents a serious contradcition to what your own church
>> leadership said, above.
>Hey, any person can say what they choose when giving their own opinions. It
>means nothing.
So the official pronouncements of the LDS are just opinions, take 'em
or leave 'em?
>> Do you consider the following innocuous changes?
>>
>> 1 Nephi 13:40 changes from ". . that the Lamb of God is the Eternal
>> Father and Savior of the world" to ". . . Eternal Son of the Father
>> and Savior of the world."
>A correction by Joseph simply to clarify the text. But since Christ is the
>Father and the Son, the verse doesn't change meaning at all.
Actually, it would be better to say that the doctrinal concept doesn't
change. You can't say the meaning of the verse doesn't change when
the words in it are changed. And my point isn't about whether the
changes affected doctrine. My point was that the changes we not just
punctuation and spelling.
This also doesn't resolve the discrepancy this concept creates with
the NT accounts of Christ's nature. The NT never claims that Jesus is
the Father. Equality with the essence of God is not the same as
identity with each of the other Persons. This brings LDS doctrine in
conflict with the NT.
>> Mosiah 21:28 changes from ". . King Benjamin had a gift from God . ."
>> to ". . King Mosiah had a gift from God . ."
>A correction by Joseph. Or perhaps, since you seem to read the anti
>literature so well, you could explain for us just _which_ Mosiah was being
>referred to here, hmmmm?
Why would this matter? Benjamin cannot even remotely be a misspelling
or alternate form of the word Mosiah. This is just a detour to
intimidate your critics.
>> Ether 4:1 reflects a similar change of names.
>>
>> 1 Nephi 13:32 changes from ". . state of awful woundedness . ." to
>> ". . state of awful blindedness . ."
>>
>> Mosiah 27:29 changes from ". . wrecked with eternal torment . ." to
>> ". . racked with eternal torment . ."
>These are "significant"? According to whom? You? No, I do not find such
>corrections significant at all.
I clearly said they were significant as to the content, not whether
they overturned doctrinal statements.
>If you want to talk about significant
>changes, let's talk about the far more thousands of corrections made to the
>KJV of the Bible.
Talk away. The difference which will make this a waste of your time
is that the editors of the KJV didn't claim to translate their text,
errors and all, by means of divine agency. Their process was
publically known to any student and scholar who has an interest. They
utilized routine and accepted methods which were not secret or
magical.
>> >Ah, so only statements from your preferred list of archaeologists count.
>> >Yo, Kerry Shirts, are you reading this? This is where you step in bud.
><g>
>>
>> My preferred list? You're obviously unfamiliar with his credentials.
>No, I'm aware of the fellow's credentials. I just find it interesting that
>you state that he is the _only_ archaeologist you will accept. Heck, if you
>can't refute the other side, just limit the playing field and declare
>victory. Nice.
Come on, Craig. Your straining at a gnat again. The point is that it
violates credibility to say that evidence exists in LDS circles for
Mormonitish peoples and their vast society which has completely
escaped the attention of someone with Coe's reputation in the field.
Besides, even your well-published professors who haven't been kicked
out yet admit that Mormon archaeology doesn't exist.
>> And BTW, I didn't even remotely
>> qualify how many people were involved. So your correction to limit
>> the scope was a waste of time.
>And you missed the larger point, which was that the traditions of the
>Hebrews pretty much fell by the wayside when the group arrived in the new
>world. It simply wasn't applicable any more.
Contrary, of course, to every other instance of faithful Jews in
history. It's all too obvious that your group had special
circumstances which led to this abandonment.
Why build a temple like Solomon's, which would require a reference to
the proportions and measurements formerly used. If these weren't of
importance, what, pray tell, does it mean to build a temple like
Solomon's? It's like announcing that you're going to build a pyramid
like Khufu's Great Pyramid but it'll be half the size and have six
sides instead four.
"Not as fine." is a reference to the quality of materials.
>> So Jeremiah was simply mistaken? Or was it was God's express command
>> to not leave the city, except for those to whom God spoke separately,
>> thus contradicting himself? It doesn't bother you to propose that one
>> man of God is out there preaching "Jerusalem is fallen, do not flee
>> the city; serve Babylon and live" and another man of God is out there
>> preaching "Jerusalem is fallen, but as for me, I'm outa here"? Need I
>> also point out that Jeremiah's life was also being threatened. What a
>> total contrast in his response to that of Lehi. But according to you,
>> I'm stretching.
>Interesting how you impose such restrictions on the Lord. No, Nephi
>explicitly states that Jeremiah had been cast into prison, and that other
>prophets besides Lehi were warning the people. All we know is that the Lord
>told _Lehi_ to leave. What? You don't think the Lord could so such a thing?
It's sort of like asking that the Lord tell a lie or create a stone he
can't lift simply because he can do anything. So I'll ask you, you
don't think the Lord could do such a things? He won't do things which
are logically against his nature. But according to you, he can tell
one man one thing and another man the opposite, and it's all OK 'cause
he's God.
Maybe in your kingdom, God will one day say "I said to some you need
Christ to be saved. But now it's OK if you believe in Mohammed.
'Cause, hey, I'm God. I can do anything I want."
>More condescensions. Sigh. Yes, I'm familiar with it. Are you familiar with
>the recent discoveries of how closely intertwined the Hebrews and the
>Egyptians actually were, and the cross-language knowledge that existed
>between them? No, I didn't think so.
Craig, of course they knew Egyptian. You couldn't have lived there
for 400 years and not picked up how to order a bagel in Egyptian.
That doesn't mean their priests and scribes agreed to use it for
sacred writings, especially when it was made clear what they WERE
supposed to use.
The burden of proof is on you. Show me a sacred text of their Torah,
Writing or Prophets which was written in Egyptian.
>Or maybe, as Nephi said, he was commanded to write on metal plates. Hey, as
>long as you're imposing restrictions where none exist, go ahead and write
>on flower petals. This is becoming tedious awfully fast.
Restrictions which don't exist? Where'd you get that from. I'm
appealing to restrictions which were well known to any Jew.
>> So, you're capitulating on the Nephi clan being faithful, devout Jews
>> acting in obedience to God?
>I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that Nephi wrote on the material the
>Lord told him to write on. He himself said that he didn't understand why
>the Lord wanted him to do it, but the Lord told him to, and therefore he
>was. Sounds like faithful obedience to me.
And with a methodology like that you can prove anything you set your
mind to. All you have to say is that God told them. Don't look for
logical or theological consistency with history of previous
revelation. Everything is conditioned by special circumstances that
only apply to the Mormon story and nowhere else in the world.
>> You can't just make up Judaism to your own liking. You have to take a
>> serious hint from their history and writings. I know it's awfully
>> nice to pick and choose the parts of Judaism which fit your story, but
>> it's simply a violation of history and the legacy of their attitude
>> toward tradition. Besides, despite your wishes to the contrary, the
>> Jews themselves are the best authority on their ethnicity, traditional
>> attitude and faith, not the LDS.
>Nor do we claim to be, and you're continual insistence that somehow we are
>is becoming monotonous. Sigh. No, I'm simply stating what the book says.
And that's the problem in a nutshell. You're just stating what the
book says. Your not bothering to take any clue from who these people
are claimed to be or where they came from. It doesn't bother you that
these Jews don't act consistently with their brethren and heritage
back in Jerusalem or Babylon. You don't bother to consult the one
authority who could clarify things - the Jews themselves.
And I can only surmise why. You'd be laughed out of their temples or
universities for proposing what the BofM claims.
>They knew they had to keep the law of Moses and they did. But they also
>knew and looked forward to the coming of Christ.
So also, did their brethren who stayed behind in obedience to God.
And they were rewarded with the blessing of bringing forth their
Messiah.
>Do you also take notice of where they deliberately ignore the facts that
>don't substantiate their distorted view of things? Or the way they use ...
>to skip over the context of a quote and make it appear that the person
>being quoted said the opposite of what they actually did?
Easy to charge. Harder to prove. And, No, I don't use material like
that if it can be shown to misrepresent the quote.
>Have a hard time with symbolism do you?
Not when it's combined with commentary from the LDS that supports the
non-symbolic interpretation.
>> Now my point was originally to say that the people eventually devolved
>> into what we now know as the Central and certain Northern Indians.
>Whoa! According to what provable evidence? Sure, many _think_ that those
>Indians are the descendants of the Lamanites, but until you can provide
>proof, nothing else you say here has any substantiation. There is no
>certain evidence of your assertion above. Until you can do so, you have no
>footing.
Okay. I'll put this one back on you. Does your church teach that
there are any living descendants, distant or otherwise, of the
Lamanites? If so who do they claim them to be?
>> Have they practiced the faith and traditions of the Nephites? Have
>> they not exhibited in all their known history practices which would
>> never have been approved by the Nephites.
>Here we will indulge you for just a moment, just to show how patently
>absurd you're making things. . .
Point taken about my reference to the Nephites. However, it's the
whole enterprise I'm referring to. The purpose of having a faithful
people leave Jerusalem, build a society in the New World, lose every
individual who was faithful and turn the land over to those who were
unfaithful and their descendents cries out for an explanation.
This is in stark contrast to their brethren who followed Jeremiah's
advice, stayed behind and remained an entity, became the nation to
bring forth Christ, continue to the present day, are now restored to
the land given them by God, and have the promise of being one day
renewed in their covenant relationship with God.
>> For starters, here's one that shows problems in keeping their own
>> history consistent. Doctrine and Covenants 5:26, Martin Harris
>> affirms that the plates were shown to the witnesses "by the Power of
>> God".
>Bzzzt! Wrong! . . it is _not_ an affirmation by Harris of how the plates
>were shown to the witnesses!)
I assume that the summary note at the beginning of the chapter is the
LDS interpretation of what the passages represent. Verses 21-35 are
said to represent that "Martin Harris may repent and be one of the
witnesses." Now I don't think I'm off base for assuming that by
"witnesses" it is meant a witness to the plates themselves. It may
mean other things, but I can't believe it excludes the plates.
>5:25 And then he shall say unto the generation: Behold, I have seen the
>things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a
>surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown
>unto me by the power of God and not of man.
Now this is either a true statement about what Harris said or it
isn't. As for what he has seen, if they aren't the plates then what
does "them" refer to and why would it exclude the plates?
>5:26 And I the Lord command him, my servant Martin Harris, that he shall
>say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have
>seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God; and these
>are the words which he shall say.
>Notice also, that at this time, Harris has _not_ seen the plates. Your
>agument is nothing but a bunch of holes.
Holes. Shmoles. You do agree that v.25 is a prophesy of what Harris
will see? Does the record of his testimony as one of the three
witnesses who have seen the plates not count as a fulfillment of v.25?
Is it not reasonable to conclude that Harris witnessed the plates by
the Power of God and in fulfillment of v.25 (which is what I claimed
above)?
>> Also, Harris prevaricated some five years later in Anthon's office
>> about whether he'd seen the plates. First he states he saw them.
>> Then, when pressed, he admits that he only saw them with the "eye of
>> faith".
>According to your interpretation, of course. Harris maintained for the rest
>of his life that he'd seen the plates and the angel that showed them to him
>and the others. Sometimes he'd say with his eyes, sometimes the eye of
>faith, but in the context of every statement it was always clear that he
>meant exactly the same thing.
This is a fudge. The "eye of faith" is not the same as "with the
eyes" and you know it isn't. Harris had to know full well that Anthon
was trying to verify if he had seen the plates. So if both meant the
same thing to Harris, why would he tell Anthon that he had seen the
plates but use a term which Anthon would certainly misconstrue as
meaning the opposite? To excuse your actions on the basis that it
was the other man who misinterpreted doesn't relieve one of the charge
of lying before God when it is clear you knew what the other man would
conclude.
And you aren't going to propose that Anthon believed that the "eye of
faith" was the same as seeing with the eyes are you? Please don't tell
me you're proposing that.
>> Second, it is said that John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic
>> priesthood on Smith. Last I recall, it's sorta impossible for
>> someone who is not of the house of Levi to bestow the Levitical
>> priesthood on anyone. Of course, if you're just making things up as
>> you go along, details aren't important.
>You'll have to prove that John didn't hold the priesthood.
Oh my. And you think I'm making things absurd. John was of the same
house as that of Jesus - Judah. (They were cousins, remember?) Last I
checked, members of the house of Judah could not serve as Levitical
priests. You had to be a Levite.
>Why would John
>be baptising if he didn't hold the priesthood. as you claim?
The baptism of John was not a Levitical ordinance. John was a rogue
and got into hot water for being a rogue (among other things). His
baptism was one of repentence. He was respected for the evidence that
he was a man called of God. He attracted the common people. No
Jewish official went near him or acknowledged what he offered.
The priestly parallel for repentence was the offering. John was not
accepting offerings, so he was not performing as a priest.
>And why would Christ go to him instead of someone else for baptism
>unless John had specific authority?
He had authority before God but not as a priest. He was the messenger
"before my face" in Isaiah. Jesus called him "Elijah" who was no
priest. Jesus not only had to acknowledge John but he wanted to in
order to fulfill all prophecy. John was the only one announcing his
arrival.
>> Third, the term "reformed Egyptian" is a veritable conundrum. When
>> the term is used anywhere else in linguistics, it means that a
>> language is written in the characters of another language.
>Not necessarily. All it means is that the language has been altered in some
>way, and there are modern evidences of this taking place. I refer you to my
>good friend Kerry Shirts for a thorough denunciated.
Okay, let's play along with the meaning you suggest. Then this would
mean that the language of the plates is Egyptian not Hebrew? If
reformed means a language that has been altered, the reformed Egyptian
means a Egyptian that has been altered. Care to comment?
But since I don't buy the play along, I'll just reiterate that there
is no evidence (except that supplied by folks who don't know better)
that people call a language reformed when it has been "altered in some
way". I'll talk to Shirts. Why hasn't he or she already chimed in?
>> Fourth, the LDs have repeatedly stated that there is ample evidence
>> pointed to the events in the Book of Mormon in the New World. The
>> Hill of Cumorah is stated to be the scene of the greatest proposed
>> battle in the history of North America, involving half a million men.
>> Yet not one piece of archaelogical evidence has ever been found to
>> substantiate that anything more than the grazing of bovines happened
>> there.
>Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
What if I claimed that Lehi never left Jerusalem at all. You ask me
to show you the evidence. I claim lack of evidence isn't evidence of
lack.
The proposition isn't totally wrong. Lack of evidence isn't a proof
that it will never be found. But until it is produced, one doesn't
base all bets on it being there. One reserves judgment about the
truth of what's claimed. I don't see any LDS'ers reserving judgement.
>Undoubtedly, you would desire a great more than archaeology can provide.
Nope. Just the kind which archaeology should be able to provide
easily would do nicely. The kind, incidently, that that other
revelation seems to be supported by rather well.
>Heck, they only just recently
>found evidence of one of the cities in the Bible (Jericho? my memory's not
>real strong on this one) even though they knew where it was supposed to be.
Having support for numerous other claims which also anticipate the
likelihood of evidence helps one to compensate for the slowness of
research. But we're not talking about one area of Mormon accounts
which isn't supported amid hundreds of events and places that are.
We're talking about the condition your own scholars admit - nothing,
nada, not a shred for any event or place.
And we're not talking about the problem of Jericho in the larger
context of support for the entire BofM. You're proposing that a whole
civilization lived, built cities and temples, had wars, conducted
commerce, without a trace.
>You're wanting evidence for something that is far less concrete (simply a
>big battle), that likely left nothing more than decayed bones, and in an
>area that is only speculated at. Nice, but quite a fantasy.
Interesting. In every other place in the world where the battleground
is known, artifacts are found that validate a battle of some kind.
Okay, maybe no one knows the exact location. But half a million
people didn't do battle on a postage stamp either. New York has been
plowed under and planted for centuries. It's not unreasonable to
expect something to turn up, so it isn't fantasy. Actually, if you
look up the term, fantasy means more what the BofM proposes - a highly
imaginative poem or play, a visionary fancy. Without evidence to
validate even one event, it certain sounds imaginary.
>Yup. There's little archaeological proof - SO FAR. But then, the surface
>has hardly been scratched in uncovering all the history of the area.
>Further, it indicates ignorance of those who would claim that it proves
>anything _against_ us either!
The problem is that it doesn't prove anything _for_ you either. Even
the Bible doesn't ask people to believe its record without any
evidence whatsoever. Considering the degree of complete lack, the
argument that it doesn't prove anything against you is about as
worthless as they come.
>> I've saved the best for last. In 1959, a member of the Council of the
>> Seventy described Quezalcoatl as none other than Jesus Christ himself.
>This was your best? Laugh!!!!! Well, you've certainly blasted our religion
>to pieces with this one - LOL! All you've shown is that the Seventy's
>opinion was wrong. Congratulations.
Didn't claim that I would "blast your religion to pieces" or that this
would completely undermine any reason for believing in it. I only
claimed that your leadership had made some boneheaded comments about
history which questioned their grasp on a competent scholarship. By
your admission above, I'd say I succeeded.
>> >_All_ of the doctrine is absolutely credible. You haven't demonstrated
>> >_anything_ regarding the doctrine per se.
Interesting. You capitulate below by admitting that I have been
talking about points of doctrine.
>> Awww, sure I have. Do we have to go over this again? I've been
>> discussing two major points: 1) the credibility of the Joseph Smith
>> First Vision, especially the bit about all other churches being wrong
>> and their creeds being an abomination
>Of which the only thing you've demonstrated is that you don't agree with
>it. That was a given from the beginning. You've _proven_ absolutely
>nothing.
So the fact that Smith's statement is theologically contradictory to
the NT and the content of the creeds being denounced is just a case of
my not agreeing with you. Astounding.
>> 2) the belief by all LDS that
>> the Book of Mormon is equal to Scripture. Unless you don't agree
>> these are points of LDS doctrine?
>Yes, and I affirm it. The BofM is indeed equal to scripture because that's
>what it is. I know it. I testify of it.
What revelation! Thanks for finally making things so perfectly clear!
I see it now , Craig. You've caused the scales to fall from my eyes.
You should have said this from the beginning. It solves everything.
When the chips are down, we just resort to "ispe dixit". What a
defense.
>> To state without support that
>> Smith proclamations and BofM records are just "true" is
>> self-fulfilling, which doesn't demonstrate anything.
>Nor can you "prove" anything about the Bible being "true".
I didn't ask you to prove it. Just offer reasonable support for a
leap of faith to believe it. The Bible at least comes this far.
>Such things are
>taken on faith. Sure, you can use all sorts of means to show that the
>writings of the Bible existed, etc., but that doesn't prove anything about
>truth. . .
>The truth is divined via the spirit, . .
And last I checked, things "divined" by the same Spirit should agree.
>otherwise what is faith for.
>Scripture is believed on faith. If you require proof for your faith, then
>you have almost no faith at all.
But the opposite corellary isn't true either. Blind Faith. Faith has
a rational foundation. Otherwise, our account of Jesus' earthly visit
would have been superfluous. He might as well have landed on Mars
since faith wouldn't demand that he live among men. The fact that he
did come to earth means something. It means that God fully intended
to provide a rational basis for our belief.
>> > All of your statements have been
>> >side issues and tangentials. Again, show me that you have some credible
>> >standing by proving to me that you've read the book and therefore can
>make
>> >commentary about it. Tell me about Korihor or Ether. Who are the sons of
>> >Helaman? We'll start there and see how you do.
>>
>> As in Bible Trivia?
>No, as in show that you have read the book.
>> I'd rather stick with the areas which present
>> credibility issues.
>In other words, you haven't read the book, and you have no credibility to
>comment on it.
False assumption there, my boy. Can you tell me without looking it
up, who the son of Isaiah was as the subject of his prophecy to Ahaz?
How about naming the five cities of the Philistines? If you can't,
can I conclude from this that you haven't read the Bible?
Now, of course, I have no way of knowing whether you're going to look
things up or not before answering now do I? So what's your little
challenge supposed to accomplish, really?
And I haven't, as you claim below, gotten all of my knowledge of the
BofM from the anti's. It just so happens that a young man with whom I
work and who is an elder in a local stake challenged me to read the
book some time ago. He checked up on my regularly.
Kohihor was called an antichrist, preached against Christ to the
Nephites and was struck dumb as stated in the book of Alma. Ether was
the last of the prophets of the Jaredites and has one of the books
comprising the BofM proper.
>Everything you claim about the book is derived from
>anti-Mormon literature, mostly the Tanners.
> . .
>You indeed lack credibility in this matter.
Care to restate that?
MRH
Craig Anderson
sl...@geocities.com wrote in article <338f8645...@news.mcn.net>...
> Joseph Smith "wrote" the material from the so-called tablets in King
> James English, but in the mid 1800s. Duh-eee.
Actually, "translated" would be a better term than "wrote", particularly
since Joseph dictated the translation and didn't write _any_ of it himself.
As to the time frame, it depends on where you consider the "mid 1800s" to
begin. Since the BofM was translated before 1830 I think "early 1800s"
would be more accurate. "Duh-eee". As for the King James style, using that
style was the norm for the time period. Since the BofM is a translation,
this is precisely what one should expect. It appears to me that your post
is simply a little swipe in the wind without substance.
Craig
Craig Anderson
sl...@geocities.com wrote in article <338f86d5...@news.mcn.net>...
> Mormons are not Christians. The doctrine of the LDS church denies the
> deity of Jesus -- and that in itself is a red-flag marker of a cult.
I don't know where you get _your_ "facts", but the above certainly doesn't
qualify as one.
Craig
Craig Anderson
Kevin Kelley <kke...@europa.com> wrote in article
<339067...@europa.com>...
> Well, obviously, Craig-the-omniscient
<blush>
> if the BofM introduces different
> policies, or for that matter, the D of C or P of GP, that changes the
> meaning of the Bible, then you've relegated the Bible to a lesser
> position of importance.
To substantiate your argument, you'll have to show:
1) That "policies" are more important than doctrine and the gospel
2) That somehow the BofM changes the meaning of the Bible via these
different policies
3) That the D&C and PofGP do the same thing
4) That somehow the Bible is now less important
5) That the BofM contradicts the Bible in order to create these so-called
different policies
I want concrete, in-context evidence. Good luck.
> However, if your so-called holy texts add
> to and clarify what is reveled in the Bible, then your 'texts' are a
> good thing.
>
> They're not.
Your first statement is more accurate and finally close to the truth. Your
second statement indicates your misunderstanding. Kindly prove it.
> And the LDS church is making big bucks from their business...
Oh? Man, this is neat! Do you suppose _I_ could collect some share of these
"big bucks"? Just how much "big bucks" are we talking about here anyway?
<rubbing hands in glee - grin>
Craig
Craig Anderson
an <dsch...@televar.com> wrote in article <339080...@televar.com>...
Taken from an official statement of the church, called the 13 Articles of
Faith, here's the very first one:
"We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His son Jesus Christ, and in
the Holy Ghost."
Doesn't look like too much disagreement there, does it? I'll elaborate even
a bit further. We accept Jesus Christ as the divine son of God, who came to
earth, took upon himself our sins so that we could be forgiven, and
sacrificed himself for us. He is the Redeemer and Savior of the world, the
only path to God through whom we can be saved.
Now, does this make us Christian or not? According to a lot of Christians,
for some reason we still don't qualify.
Most of their argument comes from a disagreement about the _nature_ of God.
We do not accept the "trinity" concept of God as taught in most protestant
denominations. We state that God the Father, and his son Jesus Christ and
the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct entities. They are "one" in
purpose and performance, constituting the Godhead, but there is only one
God, God the Father.
Because we understand the godhead differently than the trinitarian concept,
many are quick to label us as non-Christians. Non-sabellists we may be
indeed, but non-Christians? Of course not.
So to answer your question of "what am I doing wrong" I can only respond
that I don't know. You believe in God, Christ and the Holy Ghost, correct?
So do I. To find out more about what we believe, check out this web site:
http://www.lds.org.
Best wishes,
Craig
Craig Anderson
> "Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>
> >Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
> ><5mll9k$n...@news.azstarnet.com>...
>
> >> Even if I should grant that the people were deserving of His censure
> >> (which I don't), how does this make the words of praise and glory
> >> (albeit falsly applied) abominations?
>
> >Who's saying anything about words of praise and glory? We're talking
about
> >creeds, and creeds are statements of faith and doctrine. Faith and
belief
> >by individuals is, in my opinion, _always_ welcomed by the Lord.
>
> So of which are the words fo the Apostle's Creed and the Westminster
> Confession? Faith and doctrine or faith and belief (as if this really
> makes a profound difference)?
Ah, twisting things a bit here. I made no reference to the Apostle's Creeds
and the Westminster Confession in the above statement. Notice that I said
the the faith and belief of _individuals_.
> >Ok, here it is for all to read. The _very first line_ of the
introduction
> >says:
>
> >"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the
Bible."
>
> >Show me in that statement anything that could be construed to imply that
we
> >consider the Bible to be inferior. Sheesh, how many times do we have to
> >say it to get the message across? WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE BIBLE TO BE
> >INFERIOR!
>
> Then don't contradict this by also affirming the OTHER statements in
> the introduction you failed to comment on. When one says that a book
> is "the most correct book" and then adds to this the qualification
> "than any other book", you are making all other books inferior. Does
> this logic escape you? You can shout the contrary all you want. That
> doesn't make the contradiction go away.
I can't believe that I have explained this, what? at least twice now? and
you still refuse to understand. For the last time: the phrase "the most
correct" refers to principles and precepts. They haven't been translated,
added to, subtracted from, and corrected umpteen times as the Bible has.
Therefore the phrase simply refers to the fact that the concepts have
remained intact and unadultered. If we could say the same thing about the
Bible's many translations, then the phrase would apply to it as well.
> And please, telling the world that you DO say this by affirming the
> use of the Bible "in so far as it is correctly translated" doesn't
> unequivocally fix the problem. If by "correctly translated" you mean
> an appeal to the independent textual scholarship which has for decades
> scrutinized the biblical text, then there's no problem of
> inferiority.
No? Then explain the Johanine Comma please.
> But if the test of it being correctly translated are
> the judgements of Smith or the statements of the BofM, you haven't
> moved one iota toward extricating yourself from the claim of
> inferiority for the Bible.
You are the one who places the artificial claim. I provided a sufficient
explanation and extrication. Your refusal to accept it is your choice, but
has no force. Furthermore, we are not required to appease your personal set
of complaints. Don't agree with us? Fine, you're not required to. But you
obviously impose an artificial standard from which even the Bible couldn't
extricate itself.
> You may think Smith was a man taught well by the Holy Spirit, but he
> has not earned the respect of men who have also been guided by the
> Holy Spirit and have derived rather different conclusions about
> things.
Such as you. FWIW, I don't particularly care if you don't respect him. Only
via the spirit can things of the spirit be discerned. JS was a prophet of
God - period.
> >> And of course, here is precisely where the rub is. The passages in
> >> the Bible which contradict Smith just happen to be the passages which
> >> he proclaims are corrupt.
>
> >Except that there are no contradictions, particularly when the context
and
> >history are examined fully. You struck out here.
>
> Since I didn't present any specific cases, you have no way of knowing
> whether I "struck out" or not. You're just making contrary statements
> which don't prove anything.
No different than what you have done, such you didn't provide any specific
cases, as you admit.
> Unless you aren't speaking the same English I am, it sounds to me and
> any innocent bystander that your claiming Smith added punctuation.
> Are those your words or not? You state that he "changed a couple of
> other places. . " This grammatically ties the subject of that
> sentence to the subject in the preceding one. ( I should charge your
> former English teachers for having to explain this to you.)
Oh, give the nit-picking a rest, for crying out loud, and deal with the
important issue. I acknowledge numerous punctuation changes, few of which
were made by Joseph. Joseph made changes to the text to make it clearer.
There, is that good enough for you now? Sheesh.
> Doesn't wash when compared to the Smith's own account that the exact
> words had to be correct before another sentence was shown on the
> stones. Under these circumstances, there'd be no need for ANY
> correction, even Smith's.
> Care to comment?
Absolutely! You _cannot_ provide a comment by Smith to show what you stated
above. I challenge you to do so. I expect this to be _might_ difficult
since Joseph himself _NEVER_ said how the translation took place, except to
say that it was "by the gift and power of God." Therefore, any comments
about it are by someone _other than_ Smith! Go ahead, try to show
otherwise.
> >Boy, did you miss that one! I said absolutely nothing about the NT being
a
> >"shallow thing." If you would read more clearly I simply asked if your
> >faith is based on "textual foundation." Let me rephrase it: is your
faith
> >based on something so shallow as textual proofs?
<snip of usual assertions about text and such>
> And, YES, my faith is based on the statements and promises of God in
> His written Word. If these are not a reliable foundation, we are all
> quite miserably lost.
Then your faith is _not_ based on spiritual affirmation of any kind? Do I
understand you correctly in this? Furthermore, let me go out on a limb and
extend this: If the _spirit_ confirms the authenticity of some text to you,
do you _still_ need a "reliable foundation" based on "textual proofs" for
you to believe it?
> >No, it's based on the confirming witness of the spirit.
>
> So if I say that my opposite belief is based on the confirming witness
> of the Spirit, you won't argue? You and I will never be able to
> settle whose faith is REALLY based on the witness of the Spirit by
> simply asserting it. Marshalling a host of the LDS who agree with
> your claim won't do either. I can gather more than you can. So it's
> not about what we assert and it's not about who has the greater
> numbers standing behind him.
Indeed, it's not about numbers. Here's my position: I won't argue if you
tell me that your opposite belief is based on the confirming witness of the
Spirit. It's that simple. The spirit testifies to each man individually,
and each person must follow the promptings of the Spirit as they receive
them. If the Spirit directs you elsewhere than it directs me, and you're
absolutely certain that it _is_ the _Spirit_ directing you, I'll only
wonder a bit, but I won't argue about it.
> And the point I suppose is that the BofM has been preserved absolutely
> intact. You must have forgotten that you couldn't demonstrate this
> anymore than you could fly to the moon. You have to have the primary
> source material and its translation side by side to make this kind of
> evaluation. Last I checked, that's sort of out of the question.
Indeed, I cannot reproduce the plates from which the book was translated.
If you require such a sign before you will believe, then you won't believe.
Be careful of seeking for signs though.
> He can't independently
> validate what he himself claims to be true. He could have shown
> validation if he had produced evidence of the correlation between the
> words on the plates and what he wrote.
The only other correlation to be had was Anton's acknowledgement, which he
himself destroyed when he learned when it came from. In later years, under
pressure from critics of the church, he recanted the whole episode in order
to "save face". So, when you state that there is no validation or
correlated evidence you are pretty much correct. The only way that you, or
anyone, can determine the truth of the book is by asking God. But what
better evidence and witness could there possibly be?
> The back and forth between the proper English of the KJV and Smith's
> grammar and usage make it plain as the nose on anyone's face that
> they're plagiarisms.
You've provided no proof of this other than your assertions. You'll have to
do better than this.
Oh, and while you're at it, how about discussing the many textual evidences
in the book that lend credence to its authenticity, such as the Hebraisms
that are so common in it.
Craig
Kerry Shirts
Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
<5maubm$1...@news.azstarnet.com>...
> "Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>
> >Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
(snip)
> In the introduction to the BoM (1981 Ed.), a quotation of Smith is
> given in which he states, "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of
> any book on earth, . . . and a man would get nearer to God by abiding
> in its precepts, than by any other book."
>
> It doesn't take superior logic to conclude the status to which the
> Bible is religated. If the BoM is more correct, than it states more
> correctly the material which the Bible itself fails to accomplish.
> You say as much below.
>
> In the Articles of Faith, the church states that it accepts the Bible
> in so far as it is correctly translated. How the Bible is translated,
> especially the NT, is not a matter of great controversy. Despite the
> many traditions of manuscript authorities, there are no gross
> deviations which even remotely obfuscate the basic meaning of the
> text. The field of textual criticism has long since settled the
> validity of the text of the NT. It's rather rudimentary to translate
> it into English, German, Chinese, et al.
I would respectfully disagree with you a bit. I used to think this myself
until I ran across two books on Textual Criticism, that for me, were eye
openers to say the least. The one by Emanuel Tov, "Textual Criticism and
the Hebrew Bible," and the other is by Bart D. Ehrman, "The Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture". Both these show your basic contention here to be
incomplete....... Well, and I have referred to this other article I found
by Stanley R. Maveety, "The GLossary in the Rheims New Testament of 1582",
in the "Journal of English and Germanic Philology", Vol. 61, 1962, pp.
562-577 which shows how various translators in the Renaissance translated
the Bible differently in order to satisfy their particular bent on what the
doctrine of the Bible meant, one side leaning to the Catholic side of
things, the other side to the Protestant. A very interesting article.
>
> Translation isn't the problem, interpretation is.
Translation IS a problem. The above article in JEGP demonstrates that most
effectively. Besides, translation is ALWAYS an issue when dealing with the
Joseph Smith Papyri, so I honestly don't agree with you.
>
> That Smith believed the BoM was a correction to the Bible is
> demonstrated by his numerous restatements of Bible passages in
> wordings found nowhere else in the entire body of manuscript evidence.
> See Journal of Discourses, Vol VI, Sermon by Jospeh Smith on the
> creation. Also, E. F. Parry's transcription of Smith's proclamations
> includes the following: "Many men say there is one God; the Father,
> the Son, and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say this is a strange
> God anyhow . . all are to be crammed into one God." Smith goes on to
> formulate his own version of the Godhead. I wouldn't call this a
> healthy respect for the Bible. Especially from a man who was
> unqualified to deal with it's translation or interpretation.
A Prophet unqualified?! I assume you are kidding. Unless you mean by
scholarly means, then we agree. But a prophet needs not be a scholar to be
qualified to translated, interprete or write scripture. He needs to remain
pure so the Holy Spirit can vibrate in his soul. THAT is the superior
qualification, and yes, I honestly do think I can demonstrate this with the
Bible.
On the other hand, Smith did not make up his own version of a Godhead, his
is closest to what the Bible states, hands down over the creeds and their
trinity formulas. No question, and yes I believe I can demonstrate this
also.
>
> Furthermore, in Doctrine and Covenants, Sect 8, v1, Oliver Cowdery is
> promised that he will "receive a knowledge concerning the engravings
> of old records, which are ancient, which contain those parts of my
> scripture of which has been spoken by the manifestation of my Spirit."
> [poor grammar not mine].
Which is irrelevant to whether it is scripture or not. Heavens poor grammar
in the Bible haven't bothered many of us for centuries, why bother with it
now?
>
> Does this not speak of a need to ferret out the "truer" words of God
> from the rest? Is this not then a correction of the Bible?
>
> > As for being superior to the
> >Bible, this could be considered correct only in that we believe it to be
> >correctly translated. The Bible has errors in it, even additions beyond
> >what was originally written.
>
> And the BoM has no such corrective history?
Not at all...... that is the whole idea. The Nephites were not perfect, and
they admitted there were mistakes in the record. If a later prophet finds
those mistakes, he is under obligation to correct them.
>Your own modern editions
> admit that corrections and amendations have been necessary to bring it
> into conformance with the original. And how, precisely, was anyone
> able to amend the text without access to the original manuscripts
> (i.e. the plates), or worse, who would have had the special means to
> re-translate them anyway?
Without revelation it is virtually impossible. Original manuscripts is
absolutely irrelevant when the Spirit of GOD speaks. I mean, honestly,
think about it.
>
> And if that doesn't stretch all credibility to the max, a comparison
> with the 1830 edition shows that many current passages are still in
> serious variance with the first edition.
So? If it is not incredible in the Bible, why would it be in the BofM?
>
> >If you can show a version of the Bible that is
> >absolutely correctly translated 100%, you'd get no argument from us on
> >total acceptance of it.
>
> On what independent basis, except ipse dixit, can you demonstrate that
> the BoM is even remotely correct as a translation. Critics of the
> Bible may reject what the Bible teaches but any secular, unbiased
> scholar of Hebrew or Greek can validate that it is correctly
> translated. Can you support an identical claim for the BoM?
Sure, no problem. Hebraisms have been studied for decades in the BofM......
Not only that, but the patterns of ancient history are spread throughout in
it.......
>
> >> whose manuscript authority cannot begin to be compared to that
> >> for the Bible.
>
> >Depends entirely on what you mean be "compared" and "authority" here.
You
> >were too vague.
>
> The Bible is supported by over 5,000 individual manuscripts of varying
> quality and comprehesiveness. The variations are of so slight a
> consequence that a "derived" original is wholly feasible without
> having an actual autograph.
Drop names of scholars who say this with you. I haven't found many yet. We
now know that not only translation, but selection of *which* books have
been at variance, so that it is not only that no two 5,000 Greek
manuscripts agree with each other, but which BOOKS are scripture and which
are not.
Since the manuscripts are the equivalent
> of facsimiles, we can look upon the virtual wording and in the
> original language written.
Nope. Copies, and that means corruption. Bart D. Ehrman is ***very good***
on this!
You simply ***MUST*** become acquainted with his material......
>
> Furthermore, the languages of the Bible remain thoroughly understood
> to the present day. All a student need do to repeat the process of
> translation, say, of the New Testament is to have a working knowledge
> of Greek and simply gain access to photo facsimiles of readable
> manuscripts.
So why all the time new critical apparatus's and new editions of the Bible
usually claiming to be CLOSEST to the original. I disagree with you here.
>
> That's what I meant by a rich manuscript authority for the Bible which
> cannot be found for the Book of Mormon. There isn't even a single
> primary source document available for use. We are left with only a
> translation of that source document and are asked to believe that it
> faithfully represents what was in the source.
Where pray tell, are we asked to believe it? I know where we have been told
to read, study, and TEST it. This we are in the process of doing.....
>
> >Which is pretty much irrelevant to the material itself. You can't find
> >original manuscripts for the NT or OT either.
>
> But I can produce reliable facsimiles of them. And written in
> languages well known throughout the history of mankind and which don't
> require the Urim and Thummim or a seer stone to understand. Can you?
Not yet.... but then we ain't done with it yet either..... More is coming,
at this point we test and try to use what we have available.....
>
> > You're straying from consideration of beliefs and doctrine here.
>
> Actually my point in this thread was to question the validity of
> simply testing the fruits of Mormonism as sufficient to accept them as
> Christians. A discussion which undermines the textual foundation for
> the BoM, which is revered by them as equivalent to Scripture, goes to
> that point.
The textual foundation? Is that what makes you believe the Bible? I
wouldn't even go that far...... Since when is Textual foundation anything
but building on the sand? Consider the case of how some Bible translations
are now including the Isaiah scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls for their own
translation! And even it is not considered original yet.
>
> >> It's translation was
> >> purported to be effected by God but the original wording was penned
> >> with the crudest of grammatical errors.
>
> >Considering that the English language of the day didn't actually even
> >_have_ an official grammar, and that it was penned according to the
common
> >spelling of the day, I'd say you're pretty much grasping at straws here.
>
> Oh, come now. How is it that the English-speaking folks of that day
> understood, memorized and cherished the verses of the King James Bible
> written 300 years earlier in a high-falootin' language no one on the
> continent spoke anymore? Besides, if it was the express wording of
> the Smith translation that was God spoken, why would any God-fearing
> Mormon tamper with it, as was the case almost immediately thereafter,
> when folks were notably embarrassed by Smith's grammer.
As if perfect Grammar makes scripture. Come on now, who is grasping for
straws to twit? God speaks, and man tries to express it the best we know
how, but uh, perhaps you are aware that even English is ***still***
changing?
>
> >> We are furthermore asked to
> >> accept the LDS redaction and correction of the Book of Mormon by
> >> individuals who somehow managed to do so without access to the primary
> >> source material or the means to translate it.
>
> >You have a problem with adding punctuation? Fine. You can obtain a copy
of
> >the book before the punctuation was added. Just ask.
>
> You're simply not being honest. You know as well as I do that a great
> deal more than punctuation was added.
A great deal more? Such as????? Look I have one of the original editions so
please lets stay down to earth here.......
>
> >> We are asked to accept as true an account which speaks of events,
> >> peoples and times spanning almost a thousand years, and in all this
> >> time didn’t manage to leave a single trace of their existence which
> >> can be substantiated by competent independent authority.
>
> >You are evidently very much unaware of the latest archaeological
studies.
>
> If you can call them such. When they catch the eye of such qualified
> specialists in MesoAmerican studies as Michael Coe, I'll pay more
> attention.
Why? Since when have scholars ever had the last word? Considering Coe's
excellent new text "Breaking the Mayan Code" and the problems of personal
biases and seriously incompetent dealings of manuscripts from scholars in
Mesoamerican studies right up to 1979 (!), I would hardly put my trust in
so incomplete and unfinished a view as scholarship! Come now, the only
discipline changing more is archaeology...... It's not so much a science as
a guessing game........Just read about it from 1855 and then come up to
today and you won't hardly recognize a thing! Nothing is done yet, nothing
final, and Michael Coe will be ***MY*** authority on that one!
>
> >> Even the
> >> people themselves are a conflict in reason, doing things which the
> >> faithful of Judah were expressly commanded not to do, changing their
> >> traditions and customs contrary to that of traditional Judaism
>
> >You'll have to explain yourself here.
>
> This is turning into a thesis, so I'll attempt a brief answer which
> you can expand if you wish.
>
> The people of the BoM are said to be faithful Jews who fled Jerusalem
> at the time of the Babylonian exile. If they were in fact faithful,
> they would have followed the admonition of Jeremiah (27:14-17) to not
> flee the city but to serve the Babylonians, "and live". They would
> also have heeded the fate of Hananiah at the hand of God for
> encouraging the people to flee the city.
Not if they received their own revelation, as they did. I find it
interesting that another prophet in the Lachish Letters ALSO did not heed
Jeremiah's words, but he is not condemned anywhere by Jeremiah for
following his own revelation! I have quite a sizeable collection of stuff
on Lachish if you're interested......
>
> That they would abandon the stated canonical language of their
> ancestors and write their official and religious records in a language
> abominable to them (Egyptian) is an inconscionable deviation from
> their traditions.
And since their traditions themselves were corrupt as Jeremiah and Lehi and
Nephi said, why follow them? The perfect background to this is the Lachish
Letters......
>
> That they would write on materials never used by the Jews for sacred
> writings and in express violation of the provisions in their priestly
> literature for the material authorized is yet another deviation from
> their traditions.
Never before? I presume you are thinking metal plates? Here you are clearly
uninformed on the latest archaeological discoveries...... This point is way
outdated and moot. Good try though......
>
> >Further, you'll have to explain just why this should be expected,
> >and why it would be considered important.
>
> Unless you want to propose that these Jews were an unfaithful remnant
> with no respect for the traditions which characterized their faith and
> nation, you'll have to explain why such a faithful remnant would
> deviate so severely from that which they would have vouchedsafe.
Deviate? Yet we find them making a replica of Solomon's temple soon after
they arrived at the New World. This is carryong on the tradition. We find
them living the Law of Moses. This is carryong on the tradition. I don't
think your understanding is exactly par for the course here, honestly......
> Since the faithful Jews who remained behind continued these
> traditions, even in the wretched conditions of exile, it is not only
> reasonable to expect that the BoM contingent do the same, it is a
> burden of the BoM defenders to explain why this is not to be expected.
The BOfM explains this......
>
> >> and in the end, for what? To have their entire race wiped out or
> >dissipated
>
> >What's your point? That part of the people were destroyed by the other
part
> >is not questioned. However, the _entire_ race was _not_ destroyed. A
large
> >group of them survived quite intact, and there's no indication from the
> >book that they were "dissipated".
>
> >> and finally to become the progenitors of a people whom the Mormons
> >> have historically despised.
>
> >"Historically despised"? You mean the indians here I presume. First, you
> >assume that the indians are the ancestors of the BofM people. It is
> >generally accepted that many of them probably are, but this is not
> >necessarily doctrine. As for being despised, the LDS had their share of
> >difficulties with the Indians to be sure, but no group treated the Utes
> >better than the LDS did. As for being despised, all of the Indian tribes
> >have been despised by the settlers in the US, as is well documented. The
> >LDS certainly did them no worse, and in many instances far better, than
the
> >rest of the citizens of the country.
>
> You have me at a disadvantage since my memory of a quotation is all
> the serves me at present. I will attempt to substantiate it. The
> gist is that those of the dark skinned races were considered unworthy
> of higher knowledge, especially the secrets of God's revelations. My
> point was that this was a rather sorry state to have devolved into for
> a people who were supposedly following God's command to depart from
> their homeland and encouraged by appearances that this was all for
> some higher purpose.
EXCELLENT POINT! Yes, since the book is in our hands, and preserved for us,
it would behoove us to listen carefully or we may end up in the Nephite
position. In the BofM, the land is a promised land, ONLY as the people keep
the commandments. If they become wicked, they will be wiped off the face of
the land. Well we can't seem to find much, so I would claim this is a
pretty good fulfillment of prophecy...... even the last editor, Moroni
tells us to not repeat the ancient Nephite mistakes, otherwise it will be
the same for us. Those last 48 pages or so of the BofM are scary......
(snip)
> This is just an attempt to ignore the issues. We're talking about
> whether Mormonism is a credible, intelligent faith.
10,000,000 of us seem to think so.
(snip the rest)
Kerry A. "GREAT Discussion!" Shirts
Kerry Shirts
Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
<5mll9k$n...@news.azstarnet.com>...
> Due to the length of the present discussion, I've chosen to split this
> up into two posts.
>
> PART A:
>
> "Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>
> >Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
>
> >> It is nowhere an axiom that only the creeds of the apostles count. . .
>
> >Au contraire. I find it so very fascinating how so many fundamentalist
> >Christians will whine and pout about how there can be no prophets
anymore,
> >and no more revelation. Yet they think absolutely nothing of imposing
such
> >things as the Westminster Confession into their doctrine, as though
somehow
> >the interpretation of the creators of the document are somehow capable
of
> >expressing the intent and intention of the teachings of the original
> >apostles . .
>
> This, I'm afraid is a side-step from the pertinent issue. What ever
> you may think or know about the WC and how its statements came to be
> written, an examination of their content is the only real issue. It
> remains, in the end a witness and glorification of God, even if it was
> written five minutes before Smith's First Vision. It is the attempt
> to make us believe that Christ would have condemned such words as
> abominable (regardless of whether they were written by imperfect men
> or a chimpanzee) that is so theologically contradictory.
Perhaps one of the reasons they are abominable is because they were not
given by revelation, which is the ONLY way of God to giving HIS word,
everything else is man's musings, no?
>
> We must somehow believe that the words of the Apostle's Creed, "I
> believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son
> our Lord, who was born fo the Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary; . . the
> forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body; the everlasting
> life." or these from the WC, "The souls of the righteous, being made
> perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heaves, where they
> behold the face of God in light and Glory . ." are regarded by
> Christ, the object of this praise, to be abominations.
The fact that it was written without revelation, shows it is man's BELIEF,
which is not God's revelation..... just perhaps.....
>
> You may question whether they represent canonical truth, you may
> question whether they represent accurate descriptions of what will
> actually come to pass, but you cannot with a straight face tell the
> world that Christ regards them as abominable corruptions.
If it is given without revelation, oh yes I can.....
> If so, then
> all of our prayers, yours and mine, must be likewise regarded and even
> more so.
No. God did not say that. He spoke of creeds written by men without
revelation. Now you're adding to it something not said here....
>For very few of us can frame our prayers in such terms as
> these, but often state things in prayer which even impune God's
> righteousness. He understands our weaknesses yet still enjoys our
> imperfect attempts to give Him glory.
So why give him phony creedal prayers? Why not just talk to God and tell
him REALLY what you need, love, hate, hope, fear, etc.? Why formalize
prayer. Do you talk to your parents in Creedal formulas? Then why to
Heavenly Father. This is simply ludicrous. That is another reason for their
abomination. A prayer simply repeated from a creed? What about your own
heart? Does God get a kick outta hearing manmade creeds repeated endlessly
as if that is sincerity? Come now.....
>
> >> You might try reading the Confession. As you do, I'd like to see you
> >> pick out and post the abominations which so offend Christ.
It was written without revelation. Give me real scripture anyday.......This
is not to say the Creed is not beautifully expressed, but this is
irrelevant to scripture. I mean, some scripture in the O.T. says woe to the
man who pisseth on the wall! Hardly edifying I must say.......
(snip)
> Craig, you might want to re-read the Introduction to a modern printing
> of the BofM. Your leadership claims just the opposite, hence the need
> to clarify that the current versions have been brought in line with
> the earliest editions. So, in that regard (and only that regard), the
> Bible and the BofM are on the same playing field.
>
> >> Translation isn't the problem, interpretation is.
>
> >Sorry, no. Transaltion is also a problem because the text and its
meaning
> >get changed in various translations, not to mention whole additions to
> >scripture such as the Johanine Comma (many thanks to Marc Shindler on
this,
> >and I recommend you read his excellent treatment of the subject).
>
> You really need to read up on this subject, like the excellent
> reference "The New Testament Text" by Bruce Metzger (Oxford Press).
> Of course, there have been mis-translations along the centuries.
> Whole traditions of translations have developed over time. That
> doesn't mitigate one iota against the ability to derive a reliable New
> Testament text. It's precisely the systematic comparisons of these
> extant manuscripts which makes the verity of the NT text more assured
> than any other document from the ancient past. Your criticism is
> actually the answer to your comment. You need to read Metzger.
And you need to read Bart D. Ehrman. I would agree Metzger is a fun read to
be sure. But there is far more at issue than translations.... there is also
which doctrines have been added, and taken away, and which books have been
added and taken away, a subject still not totally solved in Christianity
today almost 2,000 years later!
>
> >> . . . Especially from a man who was unqualified to deal with it's
> >>translation or interpretation.
>
> >Unqualified according to you, of course. But then, you are not qualified
to
> >issue such a judgment either.
>
> I apply the qualifications recognized by competent, careful
> scholarship. He was not even remotely skilled in the original
> languages of the Bible and had no formal training in hermeneutics.
> But there are men who don't and do rather well with the Holy Spirit as
> their instructor. However, they usually have enough sense not to
> claim their efforts as the most correct of all books. The true test
> of their qualifications, however, is whether their interpretations
> stack up against the revelation of God already faithfully given.
Not true. Later revelation can contradict former revelations. You would be
one for throwing them out, yet they are genuine. The correct qualification
is LIVE THE WORDS OF THE SCRIPTURE, and see if they work with you or not.
That is the only key, which is actually faith which we are commanded to
have, right?
>
> And of course, here is precisely where the rub is. The passages in
> the Bible which contradict Smith just happen to be the passages which
> he proclaims are corrupt.
Eh? Perhaps a small demonstration is called for justifiably here...
thanks....
(snip)
>
> Not because it's translated incorrectly. As I stated before, any
> competent student in the classics can verify the translation. The
> dissention is over what the text means not what it says.
Uh, actually you need to update here with Ehrman, Barnstone and others
also. Your statement here is at best incomplete.......
(snip)
> This is a major element of historicity. When a document, or truth
> claim or whatever, is made in a falsifiable environment and remains
> unchallenged in principle substance, this goes to it's authenticity.
> Unfortunately, this remains a major weakness for the BofM.
How? Of course it is challenged. And it fits the ancient patterns of
history very well indeed! And yeah, I can demonstrate this at length ad
nauseum. I'm tellin ya, the complaints will rise dramatically as I start
posting my umpteen thousands of lines on this if'n you want to see it for
real..... no joke.......
>
> >> Actually my point in this thread was to question the validity of
> >> simply testing the fruits of Mormonism as sufficient to accept them as
> >> Christians. A discussion which undermines the textual foundation for
> >> the BoM, which is revered by them as equivalent to Scripture, goes to
> >> that point.
Christ said by their fruits, not their roots. This is every bit a valid
claim. It is the unsubstantiated and silly claim of modern day Christians
that we have a different Jesus, or we don't believe their doctrines that
makes us non-Christians. It is a futile claim......
>
> >Hardly. Or need I remind you that faith is not based on "textual
> >foundation"? Is your faith based on so shallow a thing as that?
>
> I wouldn't call the New Testament a shallow thing if I were you.
He is meaning the textual foundation of scholarship, I am quite sure..... I
know Craig quite well........
In
> case you missed it, it is the testimony of Jesus, his life and
> teaching recorded there which comprise the verbal elements of
> everyman's faith who calls himself Christian.
Hence we also qualify. See what I meant above?
>Are you proposing that
> men may set aside the NT and ask God to reveal it all over again to
> them personnally? Even LDS leadership now acknowledge that to
> undermine the Bible is self-defeating for Mormonism.
We have NEVER undermined the Bible though. See this is a basic
misunderstanding. We agree with the scholars that there is no perfect
Bible, so we are lambasted as non-Christians for trying to destroy God's
word, yet thousand of Christian scholars and textual critics agree with us.
We are not lambasting the scriptures, but men's tampering with them. Even
the BofM says that! But it is constantly distorted to serve the ends of
political agendas of Christians. Sad, but true......
>
> And what do you call the belief that the BofM is the most correct book
> ever written? The LDS has proclaimed it as a key foundation of your
> faith along with the testimony of Joseph Smith's First Vision, all of
> which are " texts". Is your faith not based on a textual foundation?
To a degree yes. You forgot to mention the Bible here bub - GRIN! But we do
not stop it here. We believe God still reveals his will to us. Revelation
is the key, not a textual foundation.......
(snip)
(snip)
>And "LDS system of doctrine and teaching" is too long.
> Latter-Day Saints is not a system of belief, it's a fellowship of
> people. Mormonism is readily understood by everyone to mean your
> system of beliefs.
Which is the doctrines and teachings, who cares how long they are? Length
is irrelevant. You want length? The Bible itself should be ten times the
size it is, but since so much has been lost or taken out, we have the
Reader's Digest version of God's words, hence the continual need for
revelation. God obviously allows men, in their wickedness, to change or
take out scripture. That's O.K., he'll raise up another prophet and
continue revealing, whether men want him to or not. God is no respector of
persons, so who cares who says God has said enough. That is up to him to
decide......Man may not add to God's word, but there is no prohibition to
God adding to His own word anytime he wants to.
(snip the rest)
Kerry A. "FUN Discussion!" Shirts
Kerry Shirts
Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
<5mllal$n...@news.azstarnet.com>...
> PART B:
>
> "Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>
> >Michael R. Hagerty wrote:
>
> >> Besides, if it was the express wording of
> >> the Smith translation that was God spoken, why would any God-fearing
> >> Mormon tamper with it, as was the case almost immediately thereafter,
> >> when folks were notably embarrassed by Smith's grammer.
>
> >Oh? Who, precisely, was embarassed? (Oh, and the word is "grammar", not
> >"grammer", since you're so into this language thing).
>
> Okay, you caught me with a misspell. At least I didn't claim that I
> saw it in with my seer stone under divine inspiration.
Laugh. It wouldn't have mattered. God lets us make mistakes with our
language...
>
> As for who was embarrassed, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
> figure this out. The need to correct the type of blunders which
> appear in the handwritten manuscript imply embarrassment, especially
> when the LDS had gone on record about how the actual words were
> divinely given. See below.
Hold it. The LDS have also noted how Smith was allowed to translate the
ideas in his own words. ONLY the names of people were spelled out for him.
This is certainly in line with the idea behind what a translation is. It is
getting the idea across that counts not whether the word the is spelled the
or thuh.
>
> >As for tampering with
> >it, who did so? Joseph made some corrections, but considering he was the
> >prophet who translated it, that shouldn't upset any one? Or are you just
> >pouting because someone put in punctuation and divided the book into
> >chapters and verses?
>
> You are certainly free to minimize the mis-spellings and grammatical
> errors, but such a rebuttal seems rather ludicrous when one simply
> pictures the most rudimentary aspects of the translation process.
> Smith openly admits that he was unable to translate the plates unaided
> or by means of his own abilities. So it seems painfully obvious that
> the translated results could not be ther result of Smith's linguistic
> analysis or skill. The exact wording must have come from the
> intermediate means - the seers stones and spectacles.
Not so.... B.H. Roberts has said differently as does many of the scholars
at F.A.R.M.S. (The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies). You
need to come up to what LDS scholarship is really saying, not putting words
in their mouths.....
>
> In fact, in 1881 Joseph F. Smith said precisely this. He described
> how the book was actually translated, ". . The Lord cuase each word
> spelled as is it in the book to appear on the stones in short
> sentences or words. . . . And if there was a word wrongly written or
> even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there
> . . and when corrected, the sentence would disappear as usual." This
> is a quotation from the Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, residing at
> the Utah State Historical Society.
Why not use his own source? Why ignore B.H. Roberts or John Tvedtnes or
Stephen D. Ricks here? How bout the dean of em all Hugh Nibley? Time to
update here bub......
>
> You can't have it both ways, although it seems you'll try. The very
> words, spelling and grammatical structure came from the stones.
Not true. This is a misperception on your part. Yeah, I'll get some sources
here in a day or so. You know.... gotta look em up and all that Jazz. Hey!
Speaking of the Jazz, er, no, another topic - GRIN!
If
> the translated results were not authorized during the process until
> they were correct as written, then the misspellings and horrid
> grammar are in. It doesn't seem logical to suppose that someone after
> the fact would do what Smith, himself, was not allowed to do.
>
> >> You're simply not being honest. You know as well as I do that a great
> >> deal more than punctuation was added.
Have you ever, and I mean *ever* compared the two editions of the BofM? I
think out of 488 pages, if there were 50 things changed other than grammar
you still could not qualify that as "a great deal more than punctuation was
added." Just my opinion. I mean, heck, we still have 2/3's of the plates to
be translated and given to us! We have the Reader's Digest version of the
BofM......
>
> >A "great deal" more? No sir! Joseph made a very few corrections, very
few.
> >That vast majority of any changes were punctuation and the division into
> >chapters and verses.
>
> This presents a serious contradcition to what your own church
> leadership said, above. If Smith couldn't alter the wording while
> performing the translation, how did he justify making a "very few
> corrections" of anything?
>
> But, for the moment, I'll concede that "great deal" doesn't refer to
> quantity. It does, however, refere to quality and significance. Do
> you consider the following innocuous changes?
>
> 1 Nephi 13:40 changes from ". . that the Lamb of God is the Eternal
> Father and Savior of the world" to ". . . Eternal Son of the Father
> and Savior of the world."
>
> Mosiah 21:28 changes from ". . King Benjamin had a gift from God . ."
> to ". . King Mosiah had a gift from God . ."
>
> Ether 4:1 reflects a similar change of names.
>
> 1 Nephi 13:32 changes from ". . state of awful woundedness . ." to
> ". . state of awful blindedness . ."
>
> Mosiah 27:29 changes from ". . wrecked with eternal torment . ." to
> ". . racked with eternal torment . ."
>
> You intend to propose that being mistaken about whether the Lamb of
> God is the Eternal Father or His Son is a trivial point of punctuation
> or grammar? Is it OK that the divine agency which effected the stones
> was confused about whether it was Benjamin or Mosiah, especially when
> it was made clear in chapters 6 and 7 that Benjamin was already dead?
My your assumptions are showing! I'll get to this point in a bit..... You
have to update seriously bubba..........
(snip)
> >Ah, so only statements from your preferred list of archaeologists count.
> >Yo, Kerry Shirts, are you reading this? This is where you step in bud.
<g>
Oh just great! Thanks Craig, get me in trouble will ya? I have ways of
dealing with guys like you - GRIN!
>
> My preferred list? You're obviously unfamiliar with his credentials.
> A great many more folks than piddly ol' me think he's rather capable
> in the field. He's the foremost recognized authority in MesoAmerican
> archaeology and Pre-Columbian civilizations. That *is* a subject
> germain to the Book of Mormon, is it not? I'm surprised you haven't
> found him worth consulting, or at least given him an honorable
> mention. But then I guess you have your own preferred list.
I do use Michael D. Coe. I'll get him and start if you'd like.
(snip)
>
> Ever heard of the Talmud, Craig? It's another one of those books you
> need to acquaint yourself with. Now I just know you're going to argue
> that it wasn't compiled until long after the events of the BofM, so it
> can't apply to the Jews of those times. You only have to ask the Jews
> themselves to find out that the material represents a compendium of
> what had been their consistent tradition from most ancient times.
> Just because it was compiled at a later date doesn't mean that it's
> contents had to have come into being just prior to its publication.
I'm keeping this in mind when and if we ever get to the Joseph Smith
Papyri. I INSIST you also keep this sage bit of wisdom in the foremost of
your mind when we get to that subject..... it is seriously needed to be
understood by critics....... you know, the ole argument of a current
Egyptologist on anachronisms in the BofA and all that.
>
> >Nephi states that
> >he deliberately did not teach his people according to the learning of
the
> >Jews. Or didn't you read that part?
>
> If we all took Nephi's word for it, Craig, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion. Do you take everyone for complete idiots? It's because
> Nephi's statements don't square with what every faithful Jew has done
> in any country he's migrated to that prevents everyone but the LDS
> from treating it authoritatively.
Interesting........ I disagree, and will show why in a bit......
>
> >> That they would write on materials never used by the Jews for sacred
> >> writings and in express violation of the provisions in their priestly
> >> literature for the material authorized is yet another deviation from
> >> their traditions.
>
> >Or maybe they wrote on the materials that they could find.
>
> Or maybe they wrote on flower petals and pressed them into books. Or
> maybe they wrote each word on a bead and strung them into long
> necklaces. You just can't make things up as you go along.
We are *not* making up the idea of writing on metal plates being one such
perfectly used medium of recording in the ancient world. We have some
absolutely perfect examples dating right from Jerusalem, dating back to
Lehi's time 600 B.C. to PROVE this ancient pattern of recording. You gotta
update man, seriously bad like immediately here.......Yes, I'll get the
references. I ALWAYS get them and probably overdo them, but I don't want it
said I talk off the top of my head on everything, or that I just throw in
my own opinion. It is rather fun and refreshing to use scholarship as I
can........
> The traditional materials sanctioned by the priests and scribes were
> readily available, even in the Americas. There were no special
> circumstances which necessitated deviation from what they all knew to
> be traditionally approved.
Metal plates were no deviation. The Dead Sea Scrolls Copper Scroll proves
that. It also proves that Jews wrote on metal. Just one of many dozens of
examples off the top of my head.......
>
(snip)
>
> Now my point was originally to say that the people eventually devolved
> into what we now know as the Central and certain Northern Indians.
> Have they practiced the faith and traditions of the Nephites? Have
> they not exhibited in all their known history practices which would
> never have been approved by the Nephites. Yet that is the state into
> which the whole enterprise devolved. One has to question whether it
> would have been better to have heeded Jeremiah's exhortation and to
> have remained in Babylon.
No, it would have been better had they kept the commands of God as they
were told to do. Their alternative they were fully aware of....
destruction. That also is in the BofM as a verified prophecy......
(snip)
> Second, it is said that John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic
> priesthood on Smith. Last I recall, it's sorta impossible for
> someone who is not of the house of Levi to bestow the Levitical
> priesthood on anyone. Of course, if you're just making things up as
> you go along, details aren't important.
Arden Eby is excellent on this issue.......
>
> Third, the term "reformed Egyptian" is a veritable conundrum. When
> the term is used anywhere else in linguistics, it means that a
> language is written in the characters of another language. The case
> of Chinese is an example. The Yale or Wade-Giles romanizations are
> instances of reformed Chinese, or Chinese written in Roman letters
> instead of logographs. Hence, reformed Egyptian would refer to
> Egyptian written in either Roman letters, Greek or even Hebrew.
> But this doesn't bother Smith & Co. The BofM is described as Hebrew
> written in the heiroglyphs of Egyptian and other symbols and called
> "reformed Egyptian". Also, in scholarly circles, there is no single
> instance of any form of Egyptian called "reformed".
Nah..... You need updating again.... yes, I'll get the references..... and
some rather long posts, but then I find you are one willing to tango in
Idaho (GRIN!). In other words, I like you because you will not whine about
post lengths and instead get on with the discussion. FUN TO DO! Yer Good
man...... but I'm better.... (ooooo, how's that for male vanity? Pretty
good eh? GRIN!)
>
> Fourth, the LDs have repeatedly stated that there is ample evidence
> pointed to the events in the Book of Mormon in the New World. The
> Hill of Cumorah is stated to be the scene of the greatest proposed
> battle in the history of North America, involving half a million men.
> Yet not one piece of archaelogical evidence has ever been found to
> substantiate that anything more than the grazing of bovines happened
> there.
>
> Even John Sorenson, your Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at
> BYU and highly published, admits this and more, "After nearly 150
> years . . we Mormons have been unable confidently to pin down the
> location of a single city, identify even one route they traversed . .
> in their American promised land." Dr. Christensen at BYU adds to
> this, "In the first place, the statement that the Book of Mormon has
> already been proved by archaeology is misleading." . . "That such an
> idea could exist indicates the ignorance of many of our people with
> regard to what is going on in the historical and anthropological
> sciences. "
>
> I've saved the best for last. In 1959, a member of the Council of the
> Seventy described Quezalcoatl as none other than Jesus Christ himself.
> The fact that Queztalcoatl was a bloodthirsty pagan deity in contrast
> to every known fact about Jesus Christ didn't seem to bother him. Nor
> the fact that Queztalcoatl can be dated back to 2000 B.C.
All fair criticisms. They have nothing to do with the BofM itself, but what
others are claiming, which certainly may be incorrect. THIS you MUST
understand. It does NOTHING against the BofM to have we Mormons
misunderstand it or the sciences of archaeology, history, anthropology etc.
What the Book of Mormon ACTUALLY states is the issue, not our speculatory
ramblings based on incomplete and contradictory data.......
(snip)
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry Shirts
Craig Anderson <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote in article
<01bc6f73$920b7d80$e1a9dcc0@craiga>...
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE PAL!!!!! I want my fair share..... say my 10% back with
18% interest???? HUGE WIDE TOOTHED LAUGH!
>
> Craig
Kerry A. "And some say I have no business sense, riiiiiiight!" Shirts
>
D Sergeant (CoMIR)
Craig Anderson (10511...@CompuServ.COM) wrote:
: I can't believe that I have explained this, what? at least twice now? and
: you still refuse to understand. For the last time: the phrase "the most
: correct" refers to principles and precepts.
So the precepts of the Bible are more wrong than those of the BOM, and the
same goes to the principles.
: They haven't been translated, added to, subtracted from, and corrected
: umpteen times as the Bible has. Therefore the phrase simply refers to
: the fact that the concepts have remained intact and unadultered. If we
: could say the same thing about the Bible's many translations, then the
: phrase would apply to it as well.
If we had a Bible that hadn't been translated umpteen times (plus many
other adulterations that you claim have happened) that had a different
set of precepts and principles to the BOM then it would be equally as
correct.
Here we have the idea that two opposing sets of precepts can both be
equally as correct, even if they are mutually exclusive.
Presumably that means that anything I write here is equally as correct,
because it is in its original (untranslated unadulterated) form.
: Only via the spirit can things of the spirit be discerned. JS was a prophet
: ob God - period.
:
: > >> And of course, here is precisely where the rub is. The passages in
: > >> the Bible which contradict Smith just happen to be the passages which
: > >> he proclaims are corrupt.
: >
: > >Except that there are no contradictions, particularly when the context
: and
: > >history are examined fully. You struck out here.
: >
: > Since I didn't present any specific cases, you have no way of knowing
: > whether I "struck out" or not. You're just making contrary statements
: > which don't prove anything.
:
: No different than what you have done, such you didn't provide any specific
: cases, as you admit.
:
: > Unless you aren't speaking the same English I am, it sounds to me and
: > any innocent bystander that your claiming Smith added punctuation.
: > Are those your words or not? You state that he "changed a couple of
: > other places. . " This grammatically ties the subject of that
: > sentence to the subject in the preceding one. ( I should charge your
: > former English teachers for having to explain this to you.)
:
: Oh, give the nit-picking a rest, for crying out loud, and deal with the
: to "save face". So, when you state that there is no validation or
: correlated evidence you are pretty much correct. The only way that you, or
: anyone, can determine the truth of the book is by asking God. But what
: better evidence and witness could there possibly be?
electr10
D Sergeant (CoMIR) <de...@scs.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in article
<1997Jun3.1...@leeds.ac.uk>...
> There are many books inspired by the Holy Spirit but the Bible is the
only record
of the life of Christ and his teachiings. If we believe his words then we
are Christians.
Michael R. Hagerty
"Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
><5mtifu$r...@news.azstarnet.com>...
>> "Craig Anderson" <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>>
>> So of which are the words fo the Apostle's Creed and the Westminster
>> Confession? Faith and doctrine or faith and belief (as if this really
>> makes a profound difference)?
>Ah, twisting things a bit here. I made no reference to the Apostle's Creeds
>and the Westminster Confession in the above statement. Notice that I said
>the the faith and belief of _individuals_.
Your man said "creeds" without qualifying which. So it doesn't break
any rule of logic I know of to assume that anything the non-Mormon
churches considered creeds was a go.
>> >Show me in that statement anything that could be construed to imply that
>> >we
>> >consider the Bible to be inferior. Sheesh, how many times do we have to
>> >say it to get the message across? WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE BIBLE TO BE
>> >INFERIOR!
>>
>> Then don't contradict this by also affirming the OTHER statements in
>> the introduction you failed to comment on. When one says that a book
>> is "the most correct book" and then adds to this the qualification
>> "than any other book", you are making all other books inferior. Does
>> this logic escape you? You can shout the contrary all you want. That
>> doesn't make the contradiction go away.
>I can't believe that I have explained this, what? at least twice now? and
>you still refuse to understand. For the last time: the phrase "the most
>correct" refers to principles and precepts.
How about a chapter and verse? There isn't a shred of your trumped up
qualification in the documents the LDS present as accurate records of
what was said. Have you a commentary lurking out of reach somewhere
that clarifies with some later revelation that "most correct" only
applied to principles and precepts? And mind you, none of those
statements from LDS leadership you keep claiming are only opinions.
>They haven't been translated,
>added to, subtracted from, and corrected umpteen times as the Bible has.
>Therefore the phrase simply refers to the fact that the concepts have
>remained intact and unadultered. If we could say the same thing about the
>Bible's many translations, then the phrase would apply to it as well.
Another fudge. You can't go around redefining terms because your
stuck for an answer to a situation which everyone else manages to
grasp but you.
>> And please, telling the world that you DO say this by affirming the
>> use of the Bible "in so far as it is correctly translated" doesn't
>> unequivocally fix the problem. If by "correctly translated" you mean
>> an appeal to the independent textual scholarship which has for decades
>> scrutinized the biblical text, then there's no problem of
>> inferiority.
>No? Then explain the Johanine Comma please.
It's precisely the same scrutiny from textual criticism as is applied
to every other part of the Bible that helps us in understanding and
correcting errors of transmission or blatant human tampering (Erasmus
predominating). We don't claim the transmission process was without
error. We claim that DESPITE the error, man can know the original
from the error. That's precisely why having more than one source
document vindicates the Bible and undermines the BofM.
>> But if the test of it being correctly translated are
>> the judgements of Smith or the statements of the BofM, you haven't
>> moved one iota toward extricating yourself from the claim of
>> inferiority for the Bible.
>You are the one who places the artificial claim. I provided a sufficient
>explanation and extrication. Your refusal to accept it is your choice, but
>has no force. Furthermore, we are not required to appease your personal set
>of complaints. Don't agree with us? Fine, you're not required to. But you
>obviously impose an artificial standard from which even the Bible couldn't
>extricate itself.
Artificial? Personal set? Are you even remotely familiar with the
vast amount of scholarship outside the LDS? Try your "sufficient
explanation and extrication" in any university class in logic. It's
rebuttals like this that cause me to wonder if you understand what the
words you use actually imply.
>> You may think Smith was a man taught well by the Holy Spirit, but he
>> has not earned the respect of men who have also been guided by the
>> Holy Spirit and have derived rather different conclusions about
>> things.
>Such as you. FWIW, I don't particularly care if you don't respect him. Only
>via the spirit can things of the spirit be discerned. JS was a prophet of
>God - period.
So you accept Mohammed for saying the same thing? Mr. Do in San
Diego? People who believed in them stated that they confirmed this
spiritually also. You consistently fail to perceive that there is a
reason for the objective side to faith.
>> Unless you aren't speaking the same English I am, it sounds to me and
>> any innocent bystander that your claiming Smith added punctuation.
>> Are those your words or not? You state that he "changed a couple of
>> other places. . " This grammatically ties the subject of that
>> sentence to the subject in the preceding one. ( I should charge your
>> former English teachers for having to explain this to you.)
>Oh, give the nit-picking a rest, for crying out loud, and deal with the
>important issue. I acknowledge numerous punctuation changes, few of which
>were made by Joseph. Joseph made changes to the text to make it clearer.
>There, is that good enough for you now? Sheesh.
In other words, "Don't take too much stock in anything I say 'cause I
can change it back and forth anytime it suits me."
You said:
>>>Adding punctuation distresses you? That's pretty much all it was, of
>>>course.
Then:
>>>Excuse me, but I didn't say that Joseph corrected punctuation. I said he
>>>made some changes to make the text clearer.
We'll let the rest of rational humanity decide, shall we?
>> Doesn't wash when compared to the Smith's own account that the exact
>> words had to be correct before another sentence was shown on the
>> stones. Under these circumstances, there'd be no need for ANY
>> correction, even Smith's.
>> Care to comment?
>Absolutely! You _cannot_ provide a comment by Smith to show what you stated
>above. I challenge you to do so. I expect this to be _might_ difficult
>since Joseph himself _NEVER_ said how the translation took place, except to
>say that it was "by the gift and power of God." Therefore, any comments
>about it are by someone _other than_ Smith! Go ahead, try to show
>otherwise.
Since I've commented on why this is a fudge further on in the next
part, no comment here.
>> And, YES, my faith is based on the statements and promises of God in
>> His written Word. If these are not a reliable foundation, we are all
>> quite miserably lost.
>Then your faith is _not_ based on spiritual affirmation of any kind? Do I
>understand you correctly in this? Furthermore, let me go out on a limb and
>extend this: If the _spirit_ confirms the authenticity of some text to you,
>do you _still_ need a "reliable foundation" based on "textual proofs" for
>you to believe it?
So then you accept Catholicism on this ground of affirmation. The
Catholics claim they have the affirmation of the Holy Spirit that
their faith is the only true faith. Or is it that your claim for
spiritual affirmation only applies to the one you happen to be having?
So tell me, how are you convinced that you're having the RIGHT
spiritual affirmation at all? How is this test within yourself any
different than the test the Catholic makes about his faith?
>> So if I say that my opposite belief is based on the confirming witness
>> of the Spirit, you won't argue? You and I will never be able to
>> settle whose faith is REALLY based on the witness of the Spirit by
>> simply asserting it. Marshalling a host of the LDS who agree with
>> your claim won't do either. I can gather more than you can. So it's
>> not about what we assert and it's not about who has the greater
>> numbers standing behind him.
>Indeed, it's not about numbers. Here's my position: I won't argue if you
>tell me that your opposite belief is based on the confirming witness of the
>Spirit. It's that simple.
Then let's settle it now. I can honestly claim without merely
contriving it for this discussion that my belief is based on a
confirming witness of the Holy Spirit. I also acknowledge that the
objective expression of that inner witness agrees with those
statements of belief written down in what God has already revealed.
My inner spirit also confirms that the claims of Joseph Smith as to
the attitudes and expressions of Christ about His Church do not bear
witness to what the Spirit discloses in my inner spirit and has
already made known in the NT as to the Lordship of Christ over His
Church in ALL ages and His love for it.
>The spirit testifies to each man individually,
>and each person must follow the promptings of the Spirit as they receive
>them. If the Spirit directs you elsewhere than it directs me, and you're
>absolutely certain that it _is_ the _Spirit_ directing you, I'll only
>wonder a bit, but I won't argue about it.
So it won't bother you that it is theologically contradictory to
propose that the same Spirit can testify opposite things to different
men? You are generous, Craig.
And why do you claim that you won't argue about it when you know this
isn't true? Your missionaries are arguing every day of the year with
folks about who's right and who's wrong. Your literature is repleat
with diatribes against those who don't accept LDS teaching. And how
about Smith's proclamation that all other faiths are "wrong"? This is
an example of "wondering a bit, but not arguing"?
Now before you say it, we do the same things. But we're at least no
telling the world that we're just "wondering a bit".
>> And the point I suppose is that the BofM has been preserved absolutely
>> intact. You must have forgotten that you couldn't demonstrate this
>> anymore than you could fly to the moon. You have to have the primary
>> source material and its translation side by side to make this kind of
>> evaluation. Last I checked, that's sort of out of the question.
>Indeed, I cannot reproduce the plates from which the book was translated.
>If you require such a sign before you will believe, then you won't believe.
>Be careful of seeking for signs though.
Craig. I fear you're losing some of the rather excellent steam you've
manifested up until now. We don't need the plates as a sign! We need
them for COMPARISON! Now I know you can do better than this. I've
seen it.
>> He can't independently
>> validate what he himself claims to be true. He could have shown
>> validation if he had produced evidence of the correlation between the
>> words on the plates and what he wrote.
>The only other correlation to be had was Anton's acknowledgement, which he
>himself destroyed when he learned when it came from. In later years, under
>pressure from critics of the church, he recanted the whole episode in order
>to "save face".
And this need to "save face" didn't ring any bells? Not even for a
diligent apologist like you?
>So, when you state that there is no validation or
>correlated evidence you are pretty much correct. The only way that you, or
>anyone, can determine the truth of the book is by asking God. But what
>better evidence and witness could there possibly be?
Agreed. An excellent point. But, Craig, it's not left to a wholly
subjective evaluation. If this were so, God would have provided NO
written records of any kind. It would all be nicely handled by
spiritual affirmation. The objectivisation of his Word into something
which did not need a spiritual divining to perceive is a giant clue
that God wanted an objective reference to be available to man.
Isn't this the gist of the problem in Abraham's time. There was no
written record of his requirements for righteousness. The people were
in precisely the kind of situation you propose as the mainstay of a
man's faith. And it was chaos. He introduced his written Word
because man could not be counted on to perceive the spiritual
affirmation of God correctly or even consistently.
>> The back and forth between the proper English of the KJV and Smith's
>> grammar and usage make it plain as the nose on anyone's face that
>> they're plagiarisms.
>You've provided no proof of this other than your assertions. You'll have to
>do better than this.
OK.
In 2 Nephi 4:2 (pg 460 in the first edition, pg 413 in the 1981
edition), Smith's words are "there was no wild beasts. ."
Later, in 2 Nephi 9:39 Smith's grammar seems to have miraculously
redeemed itself as he renders, "to be carnally minded is death, but to
be spiritually-minded is life." (indentical to Rom 8:6)
Further on in Mosiah 5:15, Smith seems in good form with, "steadfast,
unmoveable, always abounding in good works" (identical with I Cor
15:58). While, again, later on in Mosiah 18:26, Smith's reverts to
his usual fare, "the priests was not to depend. ."
Now I realize that you can reject these instances on the basis that I
couldn't possibly have had personal access to Smith's manuscripts.
And there would be no contest. I am dependent on individuals who have
published what are purported to be photo facsimiles of those
manuscripts.
And we can banter on and on about the manner in which they may have
been scuttled out of the temple without persmission. But all of this
boils down to a very simple test of two alternatives. A test which
the LDS are in a uniquely felicitous position to perform. The
publications are either frauds or forgeries, or they are genuine
facsimiles, in which case it doesn't matter how they were acquired.
And the extraordinary aspect of this issue is that all the LDS has to
do is simply haul out the genuine articles and settle this once and
for all.
The fact that they haven't is significant. The fact that the writers
and publishers have earned the undying hatred of the LDS only bolsters
(in the absence of proof so easily demonstrable) their authenticity.
But if I were in you're position, I'd be more than casually
interested in taking a walk over to the big tall building the next
time I was in Salt Lake.
>Oh, and while you're at it, how about discussing the many textual evidences
>in the book that lend credence to its authenticity, such as the Hebraisms
>that are so common in it.
A fair point for some things, like chiasmic structure. But it's not
difficult to expect Hebraisms in a work that is basically mimicking
the OT in style and usage. And even this it fails to do it properly
or believably. The overuse of "yea" in comparison to their use by
equivalent words in OT Hebrew text and the appearance of "Behold" and
"it came to pass" in practically every other verse speak of a work
that is being contrived or deliberately made to sound holy.
But it is a point about which I exercise reserve and haven't formed a
final assessment.
. . . continued in the next post
MRH
D Sergeant (CoMIR)
electr10 (elec...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
:
: D Sergeant (CoMIR) <de...@scs.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in article
<snip>
So I did. Unfortunately it has been mangled. (Probably my fault, so I will
try again.)
Craig wrote:
: Only via the spirit can things of the spirit be discerned. JS was a
: prophet ob God - period.
JS wasn't a prophet of God - period.
That was the only thing I was trying to say.
Derek
D Sergeant (CoMIR)
Craig Anderson (10511...@CompuServ.COM) wrote:
<snip to claim that John the Baptist was a priest of Levi>
: > He had authority before God but not as a priest.
:
: Huh? Sorry, I don't accept this. This is saying that God stepped beyond the
: organization that He himself had set up, thereby contradicting Himself.
: Nope, no good.
God didn't restrict Himself by an organisation that He had set up for man.
God does not work within any bounds, and certainly not human ones. Also,
baptism wasn't a priestly work - which other priests baptised anyone?
: And though you claim you haven't gotten "all" of your information from the
: anti's, it doesn't invalidate this statement:
:
: > >Everything you claim about the book is derived from
: > >anti-Mormon literature, mostly the Tanners.
:
: Every criticism you put forth has been put forth before.
Which lends itself to the idea: the criticisms of the LDS church are the
same because the LDS church is still in error on the same fundamentals.
: Craig
Derek
Craig Anderson
> Craig wrote:
> : Only via the spirit can things of the spirit be discerned. JS was a
> : prophet ob God - period.
>
> JS wasn't a prophet of God - period.
And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, it doesn't change
the fact that Joseph was indeed a prophet of God. Since you've provided
absolutely no substantiation to your assertion, your assertion lacks
credence. Nevertheless, you're certainly entitled to believe as you will.
Best wishes.
Craig
jcscott
always --- always --- come to pass. Joseph Smith made mistakes in
prophecies. Hence, he was not a prophet of God.
David
Craig,
You wrote in response to Derek,
> > JS wasn't a prophet of God - period.
>
> And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, it doesn't change
> the fact that Joseph was indeed a prophet of God. Since you've provided
> absolutely no substantiation to your assertion, your assertion lacks
> credence. Nevertheless, you're certainly entitled to believe as you will.
> Best wishes.
>
> Craig
Craig, I've noticed that you seem to be a very smug fellow who dabbles
primarily in speculation and personal opinion, and rarely to never in
'fact' based information. Yet you accuse Derek of the very same thing that
you are guilty of yourself.
So, here's your big chance Craig.
Please describe to us what a 'fact' is, then tell us how it is that Joseph
can be factually proven to be the man he claims.
You see Craig, facts are just that, facts. And the 'fact' is, that under
no pure meaning of the word can you prove to me by scripture or science
that Joseph was indeed a prophet. You can, if you choose, cling to your
testimony, I'd expect no less. However, you might as well simply dismiss
every other faith as demon guided should you do so. Faith in one's
'testimony' is a widespread thing on our little planet.
So please Craig, show me how 'factual' Joseph is. Use all of your hard
hours of study to prove us all wrong. I'm open chief, really, I am.
And, while you do that for us, I will say in preface that all of your
efforts will simply move the potential reader farther and farther from
Christ by the time you finish. Farther and farther from the Cross of our
Lord. Farther and farther from Grace, and closer and closer to a works
based faith, as if man has a chance if his own efforts could be counted for
anything.
Please Craig, give it your best.
God Bless you, and all your potential readers,
David...
D Sergeant (CoMIR)
Craig Anderson (10511...@CompuServ.COM) wrote:
: D Sergeant (CoMIR) <de...@scs.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in article
: <1997Jun4.0...@leeds.ac.uk>...
: > Craig wrote:
: > : Only via the spirit can things of the spirit be discerned. JS was a
: > : prophet ob God - period.
: > JS wasn't a prophet of God - period.
:
: And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, it doesn't change
: the fact that Joseph was indeed a prophet of God. Since you've provided
: absolutely no substantiation to your assertion, your assertion lacks
: credence. Nevertheless, you're certainly entitled to believe as you will.
: Best wishes.
:
: Craig
This call for substantiation so that an assertion can have credence is
great. Here is summary of our posts.
_Craig_
JS was a prophet of God - period. (No substantiation - no credence)
_Derek_
JS wasn't a prohpet of God - period. (No substantiation - no credence)
_Craig_
Mere opinion, needs substantiation.
It is a fact that Joseph was a prophet of God. (No substantiation)
_Derek_
It is a fact that Joseph was not a prophet of God.
Spot the circular thread. In a way the whole LDS church is set up on this
one (unsubstantial) assumption that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
Yet all arguments to the contrary or evidence of false prophecy, or uncovering
of the background behind the claims of the LDS church are rejected.
Is it a substantial enough assumption?
I (IMO) believe it isn't.
Derek
James W. Smith
> > > JS wasn't a prophet of God - period.
> >
> > And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, it doesn't
change
> > the fact that Joseph was indeed a prophet of God. Since you've provided
> > absolutely no substantiation to your assertion, your assertion lacks
> > credence. Nevertheless, you're certainly entitled to believe as you
will.
> > Best wishes.
> >
> > Craig
>
> So, here's your big chance Craig.
>
> You see Craig, facts are just that, facts. And the 'fact' is, that under
> no pure meaning of the word can you prove to me by scripture or science
> that Joseph was indeed a prophet.
Please, enlighten me. What criteria do you have to have to be considered a
prophet?
> You can, if you choose, cling to your
> testimony, I'd expect no less. However, you might as well simply dismiss
> every other faith as demon guided should you do so.
How so?
> And, while you do that for us, I will say in preface that all of your
> efforts will simply move the potential reader farther and farther from
> Christ by the time you finish. Farther and farther from the Cross of
our Lord. Farther and farther from
> Grace, and closer and closer to a works based faith, as if man has a
chance if his own efforts could be counted
> for anything.
Hmmmm. All his efforts farther away? A religion that professes and
accepts Jesus Christ as their savior, believes in baptism? Hmmmm.
It seems to me that for as long as I can remember, that is the greatest
prerequisite for entering Heaven. How does the embellishment of another
potential prophet, like Joseph Smith, harm Christianity?
The semantics are destroying the credibility of the premise your Lord died
for, love one another.
>
> Please Craig, give it your best.
>
> God Bless you, and all your potential readers,
>
> David...
You fear what you do not understand.
James W. Smith AGNOSTIC - One who looks for faith.
Craig Anderson
David <cle...@starnetinc.com> wrote in article
<01bc7115$ea94bf40$7a122cd1@david-steiger>...
> Craig,
>
> You wrote in response to Derek,
>
change
> > the fact that Joseph was indeed a prophet of God. Since you've provided
> > absolutely no substantiation to your assertion, your assertion lacks
> > credence. Nevertheless, you're certainly entitled to believe as you
will.
> > Best wishes.
> >
> primarily in speculation and personal opinion, and rarely to never in
> 'fact' based information.
I absolutely do when such information is warranted.
> Please describe to us what a 'fact' is, then tell us how it is that
Joseph
> can be factually proven to be the man he claims.
I can neither prove, nor disprove, that Joseph was a prophet. Nor can you.
Nor can you prove or disprove that Isaiah was a prophet, or Jeremiah, or
any of the others. For each and every one of them, you can state that
either the person was a prophet or he wasn't. If he was a prophet as far as
God was concerned, then it is a fact that he was a prophet. If he wasn't a
prophet as far as God was concerned, then it's a fact that he wasn't a
prophet. But no amount of sophistry, logic or argument will "prove" whether
any of them was a prophet.
Sorry, no, I refuse to enter your entrapment. Nevertheless, I state
unequivocably that Joseph was a prophet, because of the testimony which God
has given me. You are free to ignore it if you choose, of course, but it
won't change the fact that Joseph was indeed a prophet.
Craig
Craig Anderson
> Craig Anderson (10511...@CompuServ.COM) wrote:
<snip>
> This call for substantiation so that an assertion can have credence is
> great. Here is summary of our posts.
>
> _Craig_
> JS was a prophet of God - period. (No substantiation - no credence)
> _Derek_
> JS wasn't a prohpet of God - period. (No substantiation - no credence)
> _Craig_
> Mere opinion, needs substantiation.
> It is a fact that Joseph was a prophet of God. (No substantiation)
> _Derek_
> It is a fact that Joseph was not a prophet of God.
>
> Spot the circular thread.
So you admit to being as guilty as you accuse me of? <g>
> In a way the whole LDS church is set up on this
> one (unsubstantial) assumption that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
An interesting assumption, but incorrect. The whole LDS church is based on
re-establishment (restoration) of the gospel by Jesus Christ through
revelation. Indeed, Joseph is the prophet Christ worked through, but anyone
who's read the scriptures should be unsurprised that the Lord worked
through a prophet, since that _is_ the standard operating methodology.
FWIW, we sincerely feel that if Joseph hadn't measured up to the task then
the Lord would simply have picked someone else to be the prophet to carry
out the restoration.
> Yet all arguments to the contrary or evidence of false prophecy, or
uncovering
> of the background behind the claims of the LDS church are rejected.
Rather, such arguments are consistently refuted. You would like to believe
that your particular set of arguments are somehow incontrovertible, but
they aren't. You manage to convince yourself, and those around you who have
convinced themselves as you have, but your arguments can be, and are,
refuted just as easily as they are created.
You can no more prove Joseph not a prophet than you can prove that Christ
was resurrected. Yet every Christian (including we who are LDS) accept that
resurrection. It's a matter of faith, confirmation through the Holy Spirit,
etc. If you blind your eyes to possibilities because of the traditions of
men, then you never see what the Lord is doing at the moment. This is one
of the lessons of the scriptures down through history. In each and every
prophet's day there are always those who claim that yes, all the prophets
before him were indeed prophets, but not this one. Christ faced the same
doubt and rejection.
I would not believe Joseph to have been a prophet if the Lord hadn't told
me so. If the Lord hasn't told you the same thing then I wouldn't
necessarily expect you to believe it either. If you feel that the Lord has
spoken to you, and told you that he's not a prophet, and you're absolutely
certain that it was indeed the Lord speaking to you through his Spirit,
then I would wish you a happy and full life, and part ways amicably.
Craig
Craig Anderson
Raymond W. Knapp <nospam....@hk.linkage.net> wrote in article
<01bc71d4$979a2b80$Loca...@hk.linkage.net>...
> Craig Anderson <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote in article
> <01bc6d20$0a2f14d0$e1a9dcc0@craiga>...
> > That's because "Mormons" _are_ Christian. Our core beliefs may not
> > completely dovetail with that of the fundamentalist Christian, but the
> > beliefs definitely are Christian.
>
> find that the early Mormons whole reason for being was to go against
> "Christians" their history says they were not and did not want to be
> connected with any Christian. So all of a sudden they are Christians, I
> think not.
Your knowledge of church history is flawed. The "whole reason for being",
as you phrase it, was not to "go against Christians". It was to restore the
gospel of Jesus Christ - period. Are you aware that the some of the most
vicious persecutors of the early LDS (not "Mormon" thankyouverymuch) were
so-called "Christian" ministers? The LDS church was attractive great
numbers of their congregations, and they were finding thier livelihoods
destroyed by it. They incited much of the abuse the early members received.
Hardly anyone who joined the church in the beginning was a non-Christian -
virtually all of them left their denominations to join the restored church.
The only time the early leaders said anything untoward about Christians was
in reference to those who acted more like followers of Satan than of
Christ, yet claimed to be "Christians".
> Their teachings are not based on the Bible or the Christ of the bible.
According to your interpretation. This particular concept gets a great deal
of play around here. This is the proclamation of you and many others, but a
close examination of the real doctrine of the church shows that this just
isn't so.
> They got some guy called Christ in the Americas and talking to the
Indians,
Are you saying it's impossible that Christ visited the Americas after His
resurrection? If so, on what basis?
> they got a Father God that is from another world, which reading their own
> teachings show, and that is not Christian doctrine and holy underwear is
> foolish, and they are going to the Hell they do not believe in, unless
they
> turn from their Angel of light that the bible says is the Devil and their
> book that is nothing but a fake, in its history and locations etc.
Good grief, what a sentence! There are so many false statements in there
that I wouldn't where to begin to straighten it all out. Let's just say
that you have completely misrepresented us and our doctrine and we'll let
it go at that.
<snip of the rest of the ranting and raving>
Craig
James
(Message sent to Craig and to a.r.m.)
Craig Anderson wrote:
> Critics have said he used
> a "peep stone" to translate the Book of Mormon, but Joseph only
> said the plates were translated "by the gift and power of God".
> The main scribe who wrote for him, Oliver Cowdery, never left a
> description of the translation process.
In 1826, Joseph Smith was declared "a glass looker", arrested,
tried and found guilty of by a Justice of the Peace in Bainbridge,
New York (misdemeanor). However, these charges were not regarding
the Book of Mormon, but Joseph Smith's involvement in looking through
stones to find lost property.
There is a sworn affidavity (which Mormons question) that was
published on May 1, 1834 in The Susquehanna Register, that indicates
that Joseph Smith claimed to use a stone to translate the plates.
Isaac Hale, Joseph Smith's own father-in-law, swore that "The
manner in which he [Joseph Smith] pretended to read and interpret,
was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the
stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of
Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!"
Mr. Hales statement, collaborates David Whitmer's statment
in his "Address to All Believers oin Christ, page 12):
"I will now give you a description of the manner in
which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph would
put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face to exclude
the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would
shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would
appear, and on that appeared the writing."
Also, Emma Smith, told her son, "In writing for your father I
frequently wrote day after day, after sitting by the table
close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat,
with a stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with
nothing between us." (The Saints' Herald, May 19, 1888, pg. 310)
I hope this helps.
Sincerely,
James
*************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
*************************************************************
Heath-
Someone told me that Joseph Smith was a "peep-stoner? What's a
peep-stoner?
Craig Anderson
Heath- <mhe...@apex.net> wrote in article <339720...@apex.net>...
> Someone told me that Joseph Smith was a "peep-stoner? What's a
> peep-stoner?
It's probably a reference to someone who uses a "peep stone", ostensibly
for the purpose of getting information not otherwise obtainable. It's
usually a somewhat derogatory term, and most often refers to someone trying
to look at a stone and see something that others can't (often in magic, and
stuff like that).
When Joseph Smith was given the plates that the Book of Mormon was
translated from, he was also given something called the Urim and Thummim,
which he used to assist him in the translation. The Urim and Thummim is
mentioned in the Bible (Exodus 28:30, Leviticus 8:8, Numbers 27:21,
Deuteronomy 33:8, I Samuel 28:6, Ezra 2:63, Nehemiah 7:65). Joseph
described it as two stones set in the rim of a bow, somewhat like glasses.
Some critics have said this is a "peep stone", but Joseph himself never
did, and never used the Urim and Thummim in the same manner as "peep
stones" were said to have been used in that day. Critics have said he used
a "peep stone" to translate the Book of Mormon, but Joseph only said the
plates were translated "by the gift and power of God". The main scribe who
wrote for him, Oliver Cowdery, never left a description of the translation
process.
Hope this helps,
Craig
Diana Newman
Heath- wrote:
>
> Someone told me that Joseph Smith was a "peep-stoner? What's a
> peep-stoner?
"Peep-stoner"? (G) Now, I've heard him discribed as a stone peeper, and
sometimes a stoned peeper, but never a peep-stoner.
I however, discribe him as a prophet.
--
diana;
to those who wish to find me "at home", remove "nothome" from the
address.
Raymond W. Knapp
Craig Anderson <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote in article
<01bc6d20$0a2f14d0$e1a9dcc0@craiga>...
> gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article
> <N.052097....@rc-75.netonecom.net>...
> > > All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse to
> > > categorize them as Christian or not.
> > > -----
> >
> > Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their core
> beliefs
> > are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know
the
> tree
> > by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
>
> That's because "Mormons" _are_ Christian. Our core beliefs may not
> completely dovetail with that of the fundamentalist Christian, but the
> beliefs definitely are Christian.
NO SO! Mormons are Mormons and if you study their own history, you would
find that the early Mormons whole reason for being was to go against
"Christians" their history says they were not and did not want to be
connected with any Christian. So all of a sudden they are Christians, I
think not.
Their teachings are not based on the Bible or the Christ of the bible.
They got some guy called Christ in the Americas and talking to the Indians,
they got a Father God that is from another world, which reading their own
teachings show, and that is not Christian doctrine and holy underwear is
foolish, and they are going to the Hell they do not believe in, unless they
turn from their Angel of light that the bible says is the Devil and their
book that is nothing but a fake, in its history and locations etc. Full of
lie's and sinful leaders that took up to 75 wives, sin as Jesus called it,
is sin and a Christian does not go out of his way to sin. The Mormons
teaching is from Satan, who also is not a Christian.
Just because they come as ministers and such, the bible says they are wolfs
in sheep clothing nothing more, you kill wolfs are they will kill you.
Matt 7:15
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
(NKJ)
2 Cor 11:13-15
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves
into apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of
light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform
themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to
their works.(NKJ)
What do the Mormons teach their teaching come from and their gold tablets,
but from who? "Angel of Light". read no more. They are not now or ever
were Christians!
Simple as 2 Corth 11 Chapter shows. Now that is the Bible the book of
Jesus, of who they that followed that book and teaching were called
"Christians" in the bible. Never once does it say they were called
Christians that did or followed any other teaching then that what the bible
says.
We Indians should know who and who did not come to our nation, we do have
history and it is in our writings and never did Jesus show up in the land
called America by Smith, that was not called that in the days my relatives
lived. Another fake story of Smith. Just like his cities in America,
which not even a toilet can be found. Liars are not Christians, they that
follow liars are not Christians, no matter how they "transform" themselves.
The bible is true the book of Mormons is a fiction waste of time.
Raymond.
Michael R. Hagerty
Nice to hear from you at last, Kerry.
"Kerry Shirts" <shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>Michael R. Hagerty <m...@azstarnet.com> wrote in article
>> It is the attempt
>> to make us believe that Christ would have condemned such words as
>> abominable (regardless of whether they were written by imperfect men
>> or a chimpanzee) that is so theologically contradictory.
>Perhaps one of the reasons they are abominable is because they were not
>given by revelation, which is the ONLY way of God to giving HIS word,
>everything else is man's musings, no?
>> . . .
>> . . .
>The fact that it was written without revelation, shows it is man's BELIEF,
>which is not God's revelation..... just perhaps.....
So, the prayers of each of us (which are what comprise the creeds) and
which glorify God don't count as giving him glory because they weren't
given by revelation and are simply man's musings or they're "just
perhaps....." If a man says that "God is the only Father, the One
True God, worthy of all glory and full of grace" will God discount
this as an abomination because the man didn't get it by some personal,
God-sanctioned revelation?
The statements in the creeds either glorify God or they don't.
Trying to induce the concept that they must be "authorized" only
betrays the desperation behind this argument.
>> You may question whether they represent canonical truth, you may
>> question whether they represent accurate descriptions of what will
>> actually come to pass, but you cannot with a straight face tell the
>> world that Christ regards them as abominable corruptions.
>If it is given without revelation, oh yes I can.....
Then you do so to your own discredit. To call the ideas expressed in
the creeds words which offend Christ is defies all rationality.
> > If so, then
>> all of our prayers, yours and mine, must be likewise regarded and even
>> more so.
>No. God did not say that. He spoke of creeds written by men without
>revelation. Now you're adding to it something not said here....
Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. The account doesn't say a word about only those
creeds written by men which were not received by revelation. Show me
the verse if you think it does.
The creeds are filled with the same exact expressions that men PRAYED.
So if you're willing to accept the expressions of prayer, you'll need
to show me how the statements of faith in the creeds differ as to the
nature and content of their expression.
> >For very few of us can frame our prayers in such terms as
>> these, but often state things in prayer which even impune God's
>> righteousness. He understands our weaknesses yet still enjoys our
>> imperfect attempts to give Him glory.
>So why give him phony creedal prayers? Why not just talk to God and tell
>him REALLY what you need, love, hate, hope, fear, etc.?
Why do you automatically assume that the creedal statements are simply
"phoney"? Both modes of expression are equally acceptable to God.
You're only assuming their phoney because phoney people professed
them.
Does that mean that the statement that "Christ is the Way, the Truth
and the Life" is phoney because there are some people who were phoney
and stated it?
>Why formalize
>prayer. Do you talk to your parents in Creedal formulas? Then why to
>Heavenly Father.
You're simply objecting to the creedal statements on personal grounds
- you don't happen to like the wording. That's not a reason for
discrediting them. You're simply repeating the problem Joseph Smith
had at the beginning of this whole thing. He didn't care for the way
he was treated or for the things he saw in the churches of his day.
He didn't care for the wording of the creeds (probably because he
didn't have the education to appreciate them), so he puts their
condemnation into the mouth of a heavenly messenger. It's simply too
obvious, even to the casual observer.
>This is simply ludicrous. That is another reason for their
>abomination. A prayer simply repeated from a creed? What about your own
>heart?
In case you missed it back in history, people loved the creedal
statements because they said things which WERE in their hearts.
People actually thought and prayed in this manner. And those that
didn't, wished they could. It's certainly better than the rather
flippant "Hey, Dad, what's up?" I've heard in defense of talking to
God without any pretenses.
>Does God get a kick outta hearing manmade creeds repeated endlessly
>as if that is sincerity? Come now.....
God gets a kick out of hearing ANY expression which emulates whatever
is in the heart. You've simply made the categorical judgement that
the statements in the creeds CANNOT be what's felt in anyone's heart.
God does NOT get a kick out of things done by rote or "repeated
endlessly". But that's not a problem just for creeds. It's a problem
for any kind of prayer, especially the one said at the dinner table.
>> . . .
>> It's precisely the systematic comparisons of these
>> extant manuscripts which makes the verity of the NT text more assured
>> than any other document from the ancient past. Your criticism is
>> actually the answer to your comment. You need to read Metzger.
>And you need to read Bart D. Ehrman. I would agree Metzger is a fun read to
>be sure. But there is far more at issue than translations.... there is also
>which doctrines have been added, and taken away, and which books have been
>added and taken away, a subject still not totally solved in Christianity
>today almost 2,000 years later!
Finally, a man who understands the problem! How refreshing. So it's
not a case of the "Bible in so far as it is correctly translated" now
is it? It involves a great many more issues which the serious student
of God's revelation to man needs to sort out and settle in his mind
and heart.
My proposition is that this discipline is not lost on modern man.
Righteous, devout, God-fearing and Spirit-led men have committed
themselves to this very set of disciplines. Their work is the legacy
they leave to the present day church.
The path of error is well documented. The path back to orthodoxy is
also well documented. And the methodolody which brings us there is
open to the scrutiny of the world.
>> . .
>> The true test
>> of their qualifications, however, is whether their interpretations
>> stack up against the revelation of God already faithfully given.
>Not true. Later revelation can contradict former revelations.
So I suppose you'll then accept a later revelation that says Joseph
Smith was a charlatan. Or that God is now countermanding his former
revelation about the Book of Mormon being the most correct book? Or
is it only certain things which can be contradicted by later
revelation? Hmmm?
I suspect that the only reason you're defending this complete
condundrum is that the LDS are notorious for doing just this.
I challenge you to show a single instance in the NT where the
teachings of Christ are contradicted by later revelation.
>You would be
>one for throwing them out, yet they are genuine. The correct qualification
>is LIVE THE WORDS OF THE SCRIPTURE, and see if they work with you or not.
>That is the only key, which is actually faith which we are commanded to
>have, right?
Live according to what in the Scripture? You interpretation or mine?
>> And of course, here is precisely where the rub is. The passages in
>> the Bible which contradict Smith just happen to be the passages which
>> he proclaims are corrupt.
>Eh? Perhaps a small demonstration is called for justifiably here...
>thanks....
Well for starters, Smith had a problem with Christ being equal to God
or anything having to do with the Trinity. So, he claims that these
passages need to be understood "more rightly". In his words "this is
a strange God anyhow". So he goes about building a doctrine that make
Christ godlike but not equal with God. The Holy Spirit isn't God,
it's God's Spirit, whatever that means.
> (snip)
>>
>> Not because it's translated incorrectly. As I stated before, any
>> competent student in the classics can verify the translation. The
>> dissention is over what the text means not what it says.
>Uh, actually you need to update here with Ehrman, Barnstone and others
>also. Your statement here is at best incomplete.......
Since I don't have ready access to them, why don't you indulge me?
I'm not claiming that there aren't multiple translations for many
terms in Greek or that some Greek constructs are very difficult to get
adequately into English. But none of these problems are
insurmountable. The essential meaning has always been retrievable and
expressible in any language.
>> This is a major element of historicity. When a document, or truth
>> claim or whatever, is made in a falsifiable environment and remains
>> unchallenged in principle substance, this goes to it's authenticity.
>> Unfortunately, this remains a major weakness for the BofM.
>How? Of course it is challenged.
I didn't say it was unchallengable. I said it was unfalsifiable.
(i.e., no means of comparison, no means of falsification, no
historicity.)
>And it fits the ancient patterns of history very well indeed!
Didn't claim it didn't fit "ancient patterns of history", either. I
claimed it didn't fit ancient patterns of JEWISH history very well.
>And yeah, I can demonstrate this at length ad
>nauseum. I'm tellin ya, the complaints will rise dramatically as I start
>posting my umpteen thousands of lines on this if'n you want to see it for
>real..... no joke.......
Please proceed. And with the condition that it is JEWISH ancient
history and tradition that is critical. The argument that the
Lamanites and Nephites acted just like the Persians, or the Romans or
the Babylonians doesn't go to the point being made.
>>
>> >> Actually my point in this thread was to question the validity of
>> >> simply testing the fruits of Mormonism as sufficient to accept them as
>> >> Christians. A discussion which undermines the textual foundation for
>> >> the BoM, which is revered by them as equivalent to Scripture, goes to
>> >> that point.
>Christ said by their fruits, not their roots.
So it's perfectely OK with you to believe in a Gospel claimed to have
been preached to the Martians (albeit wholly without proof) as long as
your fruits are in order? Astounding.
>This is every bit a valid
>claim. It is the unsubstantiated and silly claim of modern day Christians
>that we have a different Jesus, or we don't believe their doctrines that
>makes us non-Christians. It is a futile claim......
Okay. You say you believe the doctrines we believe; that you believe
in the same Jesus.
Do you believe that Jesus is identical with the essence of Almighty
God and in Him the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily? Do you
believe that the Word was God and the Word became flesh in the person
of Jesus Christ?
> >Are you proposing that
>> men may set aside the NT and ask God to reveal it all over again to
>> them personnally? Even LDS leadership now acknowledge that to
>> undermine the Bible is self-defeating for Mormonism.
>We have NEVER undermined the Bible though. See this is a basic
>misunderstanding. We agree with the scholars that there is no perfect
>Bible, so we are lambasted as non-Christians for trying to destroy God's
>word, yet thousand of Christian scholars and textual critics agree with us.
>We are not lambasting the scriptures, but men's tampering with them. Even
>the BofM says that! But it is constantly distorted to serve the ends of
>political agendas of Christians. Sad, but true......
But you are also making another assumption you haven't disclosed.
That there has been no way back beyond that tampering (except for the
BofM and the revelations of Smith) to establish the original intent of
those who were inspired to write. You are "lambasted" for asserting
that YOU have the only pure sight back to what God original said.
And this is not only self-vindicating and arrogant, it is
theologically inconsistent with the Lordship of Christ stated in
Ephesians and which applies to ALL ages, not just the apostolic one
and the Smithian one.
>> And what do you call the belief that the BofM is the most correct book
>> ever written? The LDS has proclaimed it as a key foundation of your
>> faith along with the testimony of Joseph Smith's First Vision, all of
>> which are " texts". Is your faith not based on a textual foundation?
>To a degree yes. You forgot to mention the Bible here bub - GRIN! But we do
>not stop it here. We believe God still reveals his will to us. Revelation
>is the key, not a textual foundation.......
Again, tanks for valuing intelligence and credibility here. We agree,
even if only with some qualification. Faith is an inner witness but
it has also been objectified in God's written revelation to man. We
differ as to what that revelation includes or may include.
>>And "LDS system of doctrine and teaching" is too long.
>> Latter-Day Saints is not a system of belief, it's a fellowship of
>> people. Mormonism is readily understood by everyone to mean your
>> system of beliefs.
>Which is the doctrines and teachings, who cares how long they are? Length
>is irrelevant. You want length? The Bible itself should be ten times . .
No, No. I didn't mean that the doctrines themselves were too long.
Land o' Goshen! I meant that saying "Latter-Day Saints system of
beliefs" is too long compared to "Mormonism".
>Kerry A. "FUN Discussion!" Shirts
Agreed.
MRH
Jahnihah
Petibacsi wrote:
>
> >Craig Anderson wrote:
> > Critics have said he used
> > a "peep stone" to translate the Book of Mormon, but Joseph only
> > said the plates were translated "by the gift and power of God".
> > The main scribe who wrote for him, Oliver Cowdery, never left a
> > description of the translation process.
>
>
> BTW from early members' diaries we know that as late as 1850s the
> peep stone was on exhibition by Brigham in SLC.It was said that this
> black stone was used during the translation.
>
> So if it was or wasn't the early members (including the 2nd prophet)
> believed it.
>
> Petibacsi
You dork, Pizzablastwe. The stone was NOT used by J.S. at all. A
particular member of the Church, Hmmm.....What is his name?
(Nevermind someone will answer it for you shortly)
He used it to 'see' and of course ran into problems of all different
sorts, but gave up the 'peep stones' and is dead by now...
Just like your research.
Peace, Jahnihah
Chris Root
Craig wrote:
> Your knowledge of church history is flawed. The "whole reason for being",
> as you phrase it, was not to "go against Christians". It was to restore the
> gospel of Jesus Christ - period. Are you aware that the some of the most
> vicious persecutors of the early LDS (not "Mormon" thankyouverymuch) were
> so-called "Christian" ministers?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Can you please explain how it is that you think the gospel needed to be
restored in the first place? When was it first lost? Also, let us not
forget that Joseph Smith was the one who initiated any feelings of ill
will on the part of the local Christian ministers of his day. It was
Joseph who claimed that all the Christian churches of his day were an
abomination and that he should have nothing to do with them. It was the
original Temple Endowment Ceremony instituted by Joseph that made a
mockery of Christian ministers and likened them to the devil's servants.
Although I, and I'm sure many Christians both today and in Joseph's day,
would strongly object to "vicious persecution" (as you call it), is it
any wonder that some reacted in such a way to such an obvious
denegration?
Chris
D Sergeant (CoMIR)
Craig Anderson (10511...@CompuServ.COM) wrote:
: D Sergeant (CoMIR) <de...@scs.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in article
:
: > This call for substantiation so that an assertion can have credence is
: > great. Here is summary of our posts.
<rephrase>
--> JS was wasn't was wasn't a prophet of God - period (no substantiation)
: >
: > Spot the circular thread.
: So you admit to being as guilty as you accuse me of? <g>
I should admit guilt? when you only admit being accused? <g>
: > In a way the whole LDS church is set up on this one (unsubstantial)
: > assumption that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
:
: An interesting assumption, but incorrect. The whole LDS church is based on
: re-establishment (restoration) of the gospel by Jesus Christ through
: revelation. Indeed, Joseph is the prophet Christ worked through, but anyone
: who's read the scriptures should be unsurprised that the Lord worked
: through a prophet, since that _is_ the standard operating methodology.
: FWIW, we sincerely feel that if Joseph hadn't measured up to the task then
: the Lord would simply have picked someone else to be the prophet to carry
: out the restoration.
If the `prophet' had been someone other than Joseph Smith, and had revealed
the same things that Joseph Smith did then I would have said that the LDS
church was set up on the assumption that the other person was a prophet. It
wasn't a matter of the name of the prophet, just the matter of why an
organisation has assumed their founding prophet to be a prophet of God.
The `revelation' was by Joseph Smith, and hence the assumption that the LDS
church is based on is that this revelation was from God. I still reckon that
this assumption is false (and unsubstantial).
: > Yet all arguments to the contrary or evidence of false prophecy, or
: > uncovering of the background behind the claims of the LDS church are
: > rejected.
:
: Rather, such arguments are consistently refuted.
Rather, such arguments are consistently denied credence and either ridiculed
or side-stepped. Where `arguers' have been incorrect in their perceptions of
Mormon doctrine, then they have admitted it and found out and corrected
their perceptions. However, none of this has changed the differences between
fundamental aspects of the Mormon doctrine and the Bible.
: You would like to believe that your particular set of arguments are somehow
: incontrovertible, but they aren't.
Not at all. I would like to believe that if my arguments are wrong, then I
will learn the truth. More importantly I would like everyone to believe in
the Jesus that died on the cross for their sins.
However, whether things are controvertible or not, I am not going to hang
on to an argument just for the arguments sake.
: You manage to convince yourself, and those around you who have
: convinced themselves as you have, but your arguments can be, and are,
: refuted just as easily as they are created.
Things have turned back to the old style again...
You tell me what I do, believe, would like etc. Yet I never remember doing
what you say I have. How did I manage to convince myself? Etc.
Such head shaking "Tut tut, if only you believed me, and could see my ideas"
do little to shake what I know and understand.
: You can no more prove Joseph not a prophet than you can prove that Christ
: was resurrected. Yet every Christian (including we who are LDS) accept that
: resurrection.
I can point to more evidence supporting the resurrection.
Also, the writings of the LDS in comparison to the Bible support the claim
that Joseph was not a prophet of God.
Even the Jews that didn't believe there would be a resurrection still got
a guard posted around the tomb to try and stop the disciples setting up a
deception.
: It's a matter of faith, confirmation through the Holy Spirit, etc.
The Bible is quite clear about how futile Christianity is if Jesus never
raised from the dead. It doesn't mention Christianity being futile if
Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet from God.
: If you blind your eyes to possibilities because of the traditions of
: men, then you never see what the Lord is doing at the moment.
What an if. If you guard your eyes with the truth of the Bible, and only
run the way it tells you, then what?
: This is one of the lessons of the scriptures down through history. In
: each and every prophet's day there are always those who claim that yes,
: all the prophets before him were indeed prophets, but not this one. Christ
: faced the same doubt and rejection.
Funnily enough, down through history false prophets have been accepted and
rejected as well.
: I would not believe Joseph to have been a prophet if the Lord hadn't told
: me so. If the Lord hasn't told you the same thing then I wouldn't necessarily
: expect you to believe it either.
: If you feel that the Lord has spoken to you, and told you that he's not a
: prophet, and you're absolutely certain that it was indeed the Lord speaking
: to you through his Spirit, then I would wish you a happy and full life, and
: part ways amicably.
Since the final gauntlet has been thrown down, I am not sure where to tread.
If I say God has told me that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, then I would
that you learn the truth, and you wish me a happy life.
If I say God has told me that Joseph Smith was a prophet, then I have to
throw the Bible away and stop following God - as I can't follow a God that
is abominable.
If I say that God hasn't told me either way, you can then say ask Him, or
say ah, so my revelation proves it.
(There are other ifs, but I think that listing any more would become
awfully tedious.)
: Craig
Derek
Todd Bastress
--
Todd
sl...@geocities.com wrote in article <338f86d5...@news.mcn.net>...
> Mormons are not Christians. The doctrine of the LDS church denies the
> deity of Jesus -- and that in itself is a red-flag marker of a cult.
>
> On 30 May 1997 17:30:57 GMT, "Craig Anderson"
> <10511...@CompuServ.COM> wrote:
>
> >gd...@netonecom.net wrote in article
> ><N.052097....@rc-75.netonecom.net>...
> >> > All the Mormons I have met have been wonderful people and I refuse
to
> >> > categorize them as Christian or not.
Yes, many that I have met have been very nice also.
> >> > -----
> >>
> >> Mormons pose a difficult dilemma for most Christians. While their
core
> >beliefs
> >> are not Christian, their lifestyles are. Jesus told us we would know
the
Its a shame that works of righteousness don't produce salvation. Then
maybe you would have a chance.
> >tree
> >> by it's fruit, and the Mormons have shown us many good things.
> >
> >That's because "Mormons" _are_ Christian. Our core beliefs may not
> >completely dovetail with that of the fundamentalist Christian, but the
or shall we say, "completely dovetail that of the written Word of God
(Bible),"
> >beliefs definitely are Christian.
Anyone who denies the King James Bible as the only true inspired work of
God can call themselves anything they want except, Saved.
> >
> >Craig
>
>
> -- Slye
>
TmC
The term "Christian" has evolved over the years and taken on many different
meanings, most of which aren’t even close to the truth. Christianity is
clearly defined by a set of rules and a standard of conduct outlined in
Scripture. That’s what Christianity is. For a person to be a Christian, he
must adhere to the rules and standards of Christianity. If he doesn’t, then
clearly he isn’t a Christian. It’s that simple. Because one shares some
common view(s) with Christianity doesn’t make him a Christian. As C.S. Lewis
writes:
"Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed- against my use of
the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of
Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a
Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far
more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?"
Now this objection is in once sense very right, very charitable, very
spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being
useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors
want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another,
and very much less important word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognizable; one who had a coat
of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you
were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he
was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information.
There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any
more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an MA But then there
came people who said so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so
anything but usefully "Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is
not the coat of arms and the land, but the behavior? Surely he is the true
gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is
far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and
courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of
arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone
will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense,
becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of
praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of
insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes
merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it
only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal
only means a meal that the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been
spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly
more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a
useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed
for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to
use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanation. It has been
spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining or as they
might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily
become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be
able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense,
is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts.
We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked
arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined
sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very
useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the
word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of
praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a
good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the
language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian,
will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians
was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to those who
accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being
extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far
closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples.
The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using
words so that we can all understand what is being said."
Partially because of the spiritualising of the word "Christian" anyway and
partially because of misunderstanding of God’s Word, in our day many different
belief systems reside under the "umbrella of Christianity." How do we identify
the True Christian?
As I stated above, Christianity is clearly defined by a set of rules and a
standard of conduct outlined in Scripture. The True Christian is the one who
adheres to the Christian doctrine as diagrammed in Scripture. So what we must
do is find out what the Scriptures teach as the True Christian Doctrine. Well
that’s the easy part that unfortunately gets mixed up the most. First and
foremost the Christian Doctrine is relief and great comfort to the person who
realizes that his soul is in a terrible way. It provides the method of escape
from the dreadful human predicament. It is only on this plateau that the
Christian Doctrine has any relevance. If you don’t realize the human
predicament or the peril that your soul is in (or even believe that you have
one), then the Christian Doctrine doesn’t have any meaning to you; although it
still applies to you. Basically all of mankind is separated from God and needs
to get back to Him. Because of the presence and effect of sin in the world,
God is required to come personally and redeem mankind. Man cannot close the
gap himself. This was done by God in the person of Jesus the Christ. Jesus
was God manifested in flesh, redeeming the world to Himself, NOT a second
person in the Godhead sent by a first person. Jesus was not a man like us, He
was a man like Adam. He was not tainted by the effects of sin. He was the
seed of the woman. He paid the price for sin, which was his life. He rose
from the dead, revealed more things about Himself to His disciples (who became
apostles) and went back to Heaven to finish His redemptive work. The
disciples, after having their understanding opened and receiving the gift of
the Holy Ghost, began to spread the good news of salvation through Jesus
Christ. In order to partake in salvation, the interested party must be born
again. To be born again is to be born of water and Spirit. These are
spiritual terms that weren’t naturally apprehended, so they were explained.
Being born of the water is the process we call baptism. Baptism isn’t
optional, it is a definite requirement (one of four). Being born of the Spirit
is receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost which is evidenced by speaking in a
language that you didn’t previously know. It may be an earthly or a heavenly
language. Before you can be born again, you must repent of your present/past
sins. These are the things that you must do to receive salvation. These
things are known as the principals of the doctrine. Once you have been born
again, you must live in accordance to the statutes declared by the New
Testament Scriptures. That is what makes you a Christian. MUCH confusion
exists because people don’t understand concepts such as faith when contrasted
with works, atonement, symbolism, and the Nature of God. Yes it is possible to
lose salvation once you attain it. No you don’t become instantly perfect once
you become a Christian. Yes you may make mistakes once you become a Christian.
No, making mistakes and committing a sin doesn’t make you an un-Christian
--
TMc
Indpendent Thinker